CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE 

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA PASSENGER RAIL PROJECT 

FROM ORLANDO TO WEST PALM BEACH 

ORANGE, BREVARD, INDIAN RIVER, ST. LUCIE, MARTIN, 

AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES 

Prepared for: 

All Aboard Florida Operations – LLC 

2855 Le Jeune Road, 4th Floor 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Prepared by: 

Janus Research, Inc. 

1107 North Ward Street 

Tampa, Florida 33607 

FINAL REPORT 

September 2013 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Cultural Resources Assessment Report (CRAR) of the All Aboard Florida (AAF) 

Passenger Rail Project (Project) from Orlando to West Palm Beach was undertaken at the 

request of AAF – Operations LLC by Janus Research of Tampa, Florida. The overall Project 

proposes implementing a privately owned, operated, and maintained intercity passenger rail 

service that will connect downtown Miami, Florida to downtown West Palm Beach, Florida 

with one stop in downtown Fort Lauderdale, Florida with continuing service to Orlando, 

Florida. To accommodate this, the Project proposes improvements to existing rail line within 

the existing Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway Corridor Main Line right of way (ROW); 

addition of new or modified rail within the existing FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW; 

construction of new rail line along the SR 528 transportation corridor; construction of new 

passenger rail stations in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando; upgrades 

to numerous bridges, highway crossings, and pedestrian crossings; addition of new track 

signal controls at key intersections; and construction of a new vehicle maintenance facility 

(VMF) near the Orlando station terminus. The objective of this survey was to identify 

cultural resources within the area of potential effect (APE) and assess their eligibility for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) according to the 

criteria set forth in 36 CFR Section 60.4. 

The Cultural Resources Assessment Report for All Aboard Florida from West Palm Beach to 

Miami Volumes I-IV (Janus Research) was completed in 2012. This document covered the 

restoration of passenger rail along the FEC Railway Corridor from West Palm Beach to 

Miami, and also addressed the addition of three stations in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West 

Palm Beach. This document was reviewed by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In a letter dated November 6, 2012 from the 

SHPO to FRA, the SHPO concurred with the National Register eligibility findings in the 

document and also agreed with the finding that the preferred alternative would have no 

adverse effect on the significant properties on the condition of continued consultation with 

the SHPO and locally affected parties. 

The project area covered as part of this documentation extends from Orlando to West Palm 

Beach via Cocoa Beach. As part of the current documentation the following segments are 

covered, Airport Rail Alignment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF), the East-West 

Corridor from Cocoa to Orlando, and the North-South Corridor from West Palm Beach to 

Cocoa Beach. An East-West Corridor of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, 

Florida, generally parallel to the existing State Road 528 (SR 528 or Beachline Expressway), 

which would extend the service to the Orlando International Airport (MCO), where the new 

VMF would be constructed. An extension of the North-South Corridor includes 

approximately 128.5 miles of rail improvements between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, 

Florida, within an existing, active freight rail ROW. 

The methodology used for this study provides a greater understanding of extant significant 

and potentially significant cultural resources within the APE, which will assist in the overall 

approach to the various processes, and further guide the system alternatives analysis for this 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research ii 

large-scale transportation project. The study included varying methodology based on the 

types of improvements proposed and consisted of extensive background research, 

reconnaissance survey, and cultural resources assessment survey work. The methodology and 

APE was developed in coordination with the SHPO and FRA. The results of the study build 

upon the initial cultural resource information gathered for the FEC Railway corridor during 

Volumes I-III of the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project (Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 

[PCI] and Janus Research 2010), and the Volumes I-IV of the Cultural Resources Assessment 

Report for All Aboard Florida from West Palm Beach to Miami (Janus Research 2012). 

This assessment was designed and implemented to assist in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190) and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (Public Law 89-665, as amended), as 

implemented by 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). It was also conducted in 

compliance with Chapter 267, Florida Statutes; Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 303); the minimum field methods, data 

analysis, and reporting standards embodied in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ 

(FDHR) Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Standards and Operational Manual

(February 2003), and Chapter 1A-46 (Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and 

Guidelines), Florida Administrative Code. All work conforms to professional guidelines set 

forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation (48 FR 44716, as amended and annotated). 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF 

The archaeological APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF is included entirely within 

the boundaries of archaeological investigations conducted for An Archaeological and 

Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and de 

la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), and 

the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998). A review of these previous surveys and an updated search of the Florida 

Master Site File (FMSF) data identified one previously recorded archaeological site within 

the archaeological resources APE established for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. 

South Terminal Northeast (8OR8277) is located within the Airport Rail Alignment in Orange 

County and is a low-density precolumbian lithic scatter consisting of two lithic waste flakes. 

The SHPO previously determined this site to be ineligible for listing in the National Register 

in 1998. 

These three aforementioned surveys also included the entirety of the historic APE for the 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. Since additional resources could have become historic 

since these previous surveys were conducted, an updated desktop was undertaken. The 

updated desktop survey resulted in the identification of no historic resources located within 

the APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research iii 

East-West Corridor 

The archaeological APE for the East-West Corridor is contained partially within the 

boundaries of the APE developed for the CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E Study from SR 520 to 

the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard Counties (Janus Research 

2005) and the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, 

Florida (Piper Archaeology 1990). An updated search of the FMSF data was conducted to 

identify previously recorded sites within and adjacent to the East-West Corridor. Subsurface 

testing was conducted within previously unsurveyed areas located within the expected 

preferred alternative (Alternative E and the common elements on both the eastern and 

western ends of the East-West Corridor). No previously recorded or newly recorded 

archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological APE for the East-West 

Corridor as a result of the current survey. Access to a portion of the East-West Corridor 

located within one private landowner’s property was not yet coordinated during the current 

survey. Once access is coordinated, a supplemental addendum report will be completed to 

document the results of pedestrian survey and subsurface testing conducted within this 

portion of the East-West Corridor. 

The historic resources survey for the AAF Railway East-West Corridor resulted in the 

identification of nine historic resources within the APE. Of the identified historic resources, 

six have been previously recorded (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8OR9851, 8BD1870, 8BD2697, 

and 8OR9850) and three are newly recorded (8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 8BR3068). These 

resources consist of five historic buildings (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 

8BR3068), one historic resource group (8OR9851), and three historic linear resources 

(8BD1870, 8BD2697, and 8OR9850). All of the previously recorded historic resources with 

the exception of the National Register–eligible Florida East Coast Railroad (8BR1870) have 

already been determined ineligible for inclusion in the National Register by the SHPO. The 

three newly recorded historic buildings identified within the project APE are considered 

ineligible for listing in the National Register either individually or as part of a district. A 

FMSF form for each of these three historic resources is included in Appendix A. Previously 

completed FMSF forms for historic resources along the East West Corridor are also included 

in Appendix A. 

North-South FEC Railway Corridor 

The archaeological APE for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line is included 

entirely within the APE established for the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I: A 

Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the FEC Mainline in Brevard, Duval, Flagler, 

Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia Counties, Florida (PCI 

and Janus Research 2010). An updated search of the FMSF data was conducted to identify 

previously recorded sites within and adjacent to the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW. 

Due to its ongoing use as an active freight line with frequent train traffic, subsurface 

archaeological testing was not feasible within the FEC ROW for reasons of safety. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research iv 

Five previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological APE 

for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line. One archaeological site (8IR846) was 

identified within the Indian River County segment of the APE; one site (8MT1287) was 

identified within the Martin County segment of the APE; and three previously recorded sites 

(8SL41, 8SL1136, and 8SL1772) were identified within the St. Lucie County segment of the 

APE. While none of these five previously recorded archaeological sites are National 

Register–listed, and none have been previously determined by the SHPO to be National 

Register–eligible, 8MT1287 and 8SL41 were evaluated by the initial FMSF recorder as 

potentially National Register–eligible. No previously recorded archeological sites were 

identified within the Brevard or Palm Beach county segments of the North-South FEC 

Railway Corridor Main Line APE. 

Approximately 2.2 miles of the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line 

archaeological APE within Palm Beach County are located within the Coastal Zone and 

Loxahatchee River archaeological zones described in the Prehistoric Resources in Palm 

Beach County: A Preliminary Predictive Study (Kennedy et al. 1991). 

The FEC Railway (8BR1870/8IR1497/8IR1518/8SL3014/8MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102) 

has been previously determined by SHPO to be eligible for listing in the National Register as 

a linear historic district. Previously completed FMSF forms for the railway are included in 

Appendix B. 

Thirteen historic railway bridges were identified within the North-South FEC Railway 

Corridor Main Line ROW APE (8BR3058, 8BR3059, 8BR3060, 8BR3061, 

8BR3062/8IR1569, 8SL3191, 8SL3192, 8MT1623, 8MT1382, 8MT1624, 8MT1625, 

8MT1626, and 8PB16041). FMSF forms were completed for each bridge, and are included in 

Appendix C. With the exception of 8SL3192 which is non-contributing, each identified 

bridge is considered a contributing resource within the National Register–eligible FEC 

Railway linear historic district. Four of these bridges 8BR3058, 8BR3062/8IR1569, 

8MT1382, and 8PB16041 are also considered individually eligible for listing in the National 

Register. 

The only FEC Railway owned or associated resource identified within the FEC Railway 

Corridor Main Line ROW was the Florida East Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains 

(8IR1049). Due to lack of remaining materials, this resource is considered ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register on an individual basis, and is also considered noncontributing to the FEC Railway linear historic district. An FMSF form this resource is 

included in Appendix C. While dates of construction were not available for all resources 

within the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW, the resources visible within the ROW 

appear non-historic and ineligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

A total of 60 significant historic resources were identified adjacent to the North-South FEC 

Railway Corridor Main Line ROW within the project limits during the Reconnaissance 

Survey. These include 12 in Brevard County, 12 in Indian River County, 23 in St. Lucie 

County, 10 in Martin County, and three in Palm Beach County. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research v 

Along the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line three at-grade crossings are located 

adjacent to one National Register–eligible historic district in Brevard County (Union Cypress 

Saw Mill Historic District [8BR2173]); four at-grade crossings are located within a 

considered National Register–eligible historic district in St. Lucie County (Edgar Town 

Historic District [8SL2801]); and two at-grade crossings are located within and adjacent to a 

considered National Register–eligible Kelsey City Layout (8PB13340) in Palm Beach 

County.
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................x

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................3

Existing Circumstances ..........................................................................................................5

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................6

No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 6

Proposed Build Alternatives ............................................................................................. 7

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT ..........................................................................................14

APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF ...................................................................14

APE for the East-West Corridor ..........................................................................................15

APE for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ..............................................15

METHODS ..............................................................................................................................16

Consultation and Certified Local Government and Local Informants Coordination ..........17

AIRPORT RAIL ALIGNMENT AND VMF ..........................................................................19

Project Location ...................................................................................................................19

Precontact and Historic Overview .......................................................................................19

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review .......................................................19

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys ......................................................... 19

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ..................................................................... 20

Previously Recorded Historic Resources ........................................................................ 21

Background Research and Field Methods ...........................................................................21

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 21

Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 22

Results ..................................................................................................................................22

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 22

Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 22

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR FROM ORLANDO TO COCOA ...............................................23

Project Location ...................................................................................................................23

Precontact and Historic Overview .......................................................................................23

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review .......................................................23

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys ......................................................... 24

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ..................................................................... 24

Previously Recorded Historic Resources ........................................................................ 24

Background Research and Field Methods ...........................................................................25

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 25

Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 26

Project Research Design and Site Location Model .............................................................26

Precontact Archaeological Site Location Model ............................................................ 27

Historic Archaeological Site Location Model ................................................................ 33
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research vii 

Archaeological Site Potential Zones ............................................................................... 33

Results ..................................................................................................................................34

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 34

Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 36

NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR FROM COCOA TO WEST PALM BEACH .......................42

Project Location ...................................................................................................................42

Precontact and Historic Overview .......................................................................................43

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review .......................................................43

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys ......................................................... 43

Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources ............................................................ 44

Previously Recorded Historic Resources ........................................................................ 46

Background Research and Field Methods ...........................................................................55

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 55

Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 55

Results ..................................................................................................................................57

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................... 57

Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Direct APE (FEC Railway 

ROW) .............................................................................................................................. 58

Historic Resources Crossed by the North-South Corridor .............................................. 74

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Brevard County) ............................................................................................................ 82

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Indian River County) ..................................................................................................... 88

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE (St. 

Lucie County) ................................................................................................................. 94

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Martin County) ............................................................................................................ 105

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Palm Beach County) .................................................................................................... 110

Historic Districts Adjacent to the North-South Corridor At-Grade Crossings ............. 112

CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................113

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF .....................................................................................113

East-West Corridor ............................................................................................................113

North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ................................................................114

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................116

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: New and Previously Recorded FMSF Forms for the East-West Corridor APE 

Appendix B: Previously Recorded FMSF Forms for the North-South Corridor Historic 

Resources 

Appendix C: New and Updated FMSF Forms for the North-South Corridor Historic 

Resources 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research viii 

Appendix D: Aerial Mapping Showing the Airport Railway Alignment and VMF APE and 

the Locations of Cultural Resources Identified within the Airport Railway 

Alignment and VMF APE 

Appendix E: Aerial Mapping Showing the East-West Corridor APE and the Locations of 

Cultural Resources Identified within the East-West Corridor APE 

Appendix F: Aerial Mapping Showing the North-South Corridor APE, the Locations of 

Cultural Resources located within the ROW (Direct APE), and the locations of 

Significant Cultural Resources located Adjacent to the ROW (Indirect APE) 

Appendix G: Survey Log Sheets 

Appendix H: Prehistoric and Historic Contexts Excerpted from Past Cultural Resource 

Reports within the Project APE that Received SHPO Concurrence 

Appendix I: Previous Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted Within and Adjacent to the 

East-West Corridor 

Appendix J: Previous Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted Within and Adjacent to the 

North-South Corridor 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Native American Consultation Contacts ....................................................................18

Table 2. Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding Potential 

Locally Designated Cultural Resources located within the Project APE ........................18

Table 3. Previous Cultural Resource Surveys Conducted Within or Adjacent to the 

Airport Railway Alignment and VMF by Survey Number..............................................20

Table 4. Previously Recorded Historic Resources Identified within the Historic Resources 

APE ..................................................................................................................................25

Table 5. Drainage Characteristics and Environmental Associations of Detailed Soil Types 

within the East-West Corridor .........................................................................................27

Table 6. Historic Resources Identified within the East-West Corridor APE ...........................37

Table 7. Archaeological Sites Located within the North-South FEC Railway Corridor 

Main Line ROW ..............................................................................................................44

Table 8: Archaeological Sites Located Adjacent to but Outside of the North-South 

Corridor APE ...................................................................................................................45

Table 9. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...................47

Table 10. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Cemeteries Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE .............48

Table 11. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Former Historic Railway Station Identified Within the North-South Corridor 

Indirect APE .....................................................................................................................48

Table 12. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ................48

Table 13. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Resource Group Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...................49

Table 14. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE .....49
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research ix 

Table 15. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Bridge Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE.....................49

Table 16. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Railway Station Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ......49

Table 17. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ................50

Table 18. St. Lucie County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...................50

Table 19. St. Lucie County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ................50

Table 20. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Resource Group Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...................52

Table 21. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE .....52

Table 22. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ................53

Table 23. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...................53

Table 24. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE .....54

Table 25. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Cemetery Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ................54

Table 26. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Building Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE .................54

Table 27. Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Cultural Resources 

that have been Demolished ..............................................................................................54

Table 28. Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the North-South Corridor Direct 

APE (FEC Railway ROW) ..............................................................................................62

Table 29. Brevard County Significant Historic District Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE ......................................................................................................76

Table 30. Brevard County Historic Cemetery Identified Within the North-South Corridor 

Indirect APE .....................................................................................................................76

Table 31. Brevard County Significant Former Historic Railway Station Identified Within 

the North-South Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................76

Table 32. Brevard County Significant Historic Buildings Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................76

Table 33. Indian River County Significant Resource Group Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................77

Table 34. Indian River County Significant Historic Linear Resource Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................77

Table 35. Indian River County Significant Historic Bridge Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................77

Table 36. Indian River County Significant Historic Railway Station Identified Within the 

North-South Corridor Indirect APE .................................................................................78
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research x 

Table 37. Indian River County Significant Historic Buildings Identified Within the 

North-South Corridor Indirect APE .................................................................................78

Table 38. St. Lucie County Significant Historic District Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................78

Table 39. St. Lucie County Significant Historic Resources Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE ......................................................................................................79

Table 40. Martin County Significant Resource Group Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE ......................................................................................................80

Table 41. Martin County Significant Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the 

North-South Corridor Indirect APE .................................................................................80

Table 42. Martin County Significant Historic Resources Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................80

Table 43. Palm Beach County Significant Historic District Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................81

Table 44. Palm Beach County Significant Historic Cemetery Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................81

Table 45. Palm Beach County Significant Historic Resource Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE ...........................................................................................81

Table 46. At-Grade Crossings Located Within or Adjacent to National Register–Eligible 

or Considered National Register–Eligible Historic Districts and Corresponding Map 

Number ..........................................................................................................................112

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: AAF System proposed Project including the East-West Corridor and the NorthSouth Corridor ...................................................................................................................4

Figure 2: Map of East-West Corridor Alignment Alternatives Considered for Evaluation ....10

Figure 3: Proposed MCO VMF Location Plan ........................................................................12

Figure 4: Proposed Alignment through the Orlando International Airport .............................13

Figure 5: Xeric Upland Area in High Site Potential Zone within the East-West Corridor, 

facing West from Shovel Test 23 .....................................................................................34

Figure 6: Low, Flat, Poorly Drained Area in Moderate Site Potential Zone within the 

East-West Corridor, facing West from Shovel Test 27 ...................................................35

Figure 7: Poorly Drained Area of Low Flatwoods in a Low Site Potential Zone within the 

East-West Corridor, facing West from Shovel Test 37 ...................................................35

Figure 8: Representative Photograph of Shovel Test (Shovel Test 27) Excavated in 

Poorly Drained Soils within the East-West Corridor .......................................................36

Figure 9: Florida East Coast Railroad (8BR1870) near the SR 528 overpass, facing 

Southwest .........................................................................................................................38

Figure 10: 5161 Palm Avenue (8BR3066), facing Southwest .................................................39

Figure 11: 3800 Pine Street (8BR3067), facing Northwest .....................................................40

Figure 12: 2800 Clearlake Road (8BR3068), facing West ......................................................41

Figure 13: FEC Railway (8BR1870), from Broadway Boulevard in Brevard County, 

facing North .....................................................................................................................59
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research xi 

Figure 14: FEC Railway (8IR1497/8IR1518), from Highland Drive SE in Indian River 

County, facing South .......................................................................................................59

Figure 15: FEC Railway (8SL3014), from Savannah Road in St. Lucie County, facing 

North ................................................................................................................................60

Figure 16: FEC Railway (8MT1391/8MT1450) from SW St. Lucie Avenue in Martin 

County, facing Northwest ................................................................................................60

Figure 17: FEC Railway (8PB12102) from L. A. Kirksey Street in Palm Beach County, 

facing Northwest ..............................................................................................................61

Figure 18: Fixed Railway Bridge over the Eau Gallie River (8BR3058), facing Southwest ..63

Figure 19: Fixed Railway Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Street (8BR3059), 

facing South .....................................................................................................................63

Figure 20: Fixed Railway Bridge over Turkey Creek (8BR3060), facing Southeast ..............64

Figure 21: Fixed Railway Bridge over Goat Creek (8BR3061), facing Northeast ..................64

Figure 22: Fixed Railway Bridge over the Sebastian River (8BR3062/8IR1569), facing 

Southwest .........................................................................................................................65

Figure 23: Fixed Bridge over the Taylor Creek (8SL3191), facing Northeast ........................65

Figure 24: Fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue (8SL3192), facing east .........................................66

Figure 25: Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway (8MT1623), facing North ...........................66

Figure 26: Movable Bridge over the St. Lucie River (8MT1382), facing North .....................67

Figure 27: Fixed Bridge over the Salerno Waterway (8MT1624), facing South ....................67

Figure 28: Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 (8MT1625), facing 

Northwest .........................................................................................................................68

Figure 29: Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 (8MT1626), facing 

Northwest .........................................................................................................................68

Figure 30: Movable Bridge over the Loxahatchee River (8PB16041), facing Northeast .......69

Figure 31: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Masonry Milepost Marker, MP 

195, facing North from the Jernigan Avenue Crossing in Brevard County .....................70

Figure 32: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Concrete Railroad Ties Installed 

within the FEC Railway Corridor ROW, located at the Southwest corner of 1st Street 

and the FEC Railway in Brevard County, facing Southwest ...........................................70

Figure 33: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing North from the County Line Road Crossing in 

Martin County ..................................................................................................................71

Figure 34: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing Northeast at the Bridge Road Crossing in Martin 

County ..............................................................................................................................71

Figure 35: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing North from the Highland Drive SE Crossing in 

Indian River County .........................................................................................................72

Figure 36: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing South from the Walden Road Crossing in St. Lucie 

County ..............................................................................................................................72
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research xii 

Figure 37: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing Northwest at the Broadway Street crossing in 

Brevard County ................................................................................................................73

Figure 38: Location of Florida East Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains 

(8IR1049) showing the Southernmost Post, facing Northwest ........................................74

Figure 39: Union Cypress Saw Mill Historic District (BR2173), from the corner of Main 

Street and Church Street, facing Northeast ......................................................................82

Figure 40: Hilltop Cemetery (8BR1724), facing Southeast .....................................................82

Figure 41: Cocoa Cemetery (8BR1777), facing Southwest .....................................................83

Figure 42: Former Florida East Coast Railway Train Station / 317 Rosa Jones Drive 

(8BR2779), facing Southwest ..........................................................................................83

Figure 43: Florida Power & Light Company Ice Plant / 1604 South Harbor City 

Boulevard (8BR215), facing Northwest ..........................................................................84

Figure 44: Marion S. Whaley Citrus Packing House / 2275 Rockledge Boulevard West 

(8BR759), facing Northwest ............................................................................................84

Figure 45: Mattie Lamar House / 361 Stone Street (8BR1163), facing South ........................85

Figure 46: Jorgensen's General Store / 5390 US Highway 1 (8BR1710), facing Northwest ..85

Figure 47: Cocoa Cemetery Storage Building / 101 North Cocoa Boulevard (8BR1723), 

facing Southwest ..............................................................................................................86

Figure 48: Ashley's Cafe & Lounge / 1609 Rockledge Boulevard West (8BR1739), 

facing Northwest ..............................................................................................................86

Figure 49: Rockledge Gardens Nursery and Landscaping / 2153 Rockledge Boulevard 

West (8BR1741), facing Southwest .................................................................................87

Figure 50: Bohn Equipment Company / 255 Olive Street (8BR1765), facing Southeast .......87

Figure 51: McKee Jungle Gardens (8IR859), facing Southeast ..............................................88

Figure 52: Dixie Highway (8IR1519), facing South from? .....................................................88

Figure 53: FDOT Bridge No. 880001 (8IR1516), facing Southeast ........................................89

Figure 54: Vero Railroad Station / 2336 14th Avenue (8IR68), facing Northeast ...................89

Figure 55: George Armstrong Braddock House / 1309 Louisiana Avenue (8IR99), facing 

West .................................................................................................................................90

Figure 56: Baughman House / 1525 North Louisiana Avenue (8IR100), facing Northwest ..90

Figure 57: 5056 North Old Dixie Highway (8IR388), facing Southeast .................................91

Figure 58: Old Vero Beach Community Building / 2146 14th Avenue (8IR624), facing 

Northeast ..........................................................................................................................91

Figure 59: Hall Of Giants, McKee Jungle Gardens / US 1 and 4th Street (8IR858), facing 

Northeast ..........................................................................................................................92

Figure 60: Vero Beach Diesel Power Plant / 1133 19th Place (8IR975), facing Southeast .....92

Figure 61: Vero Beach Community Center / 2266 14th Avenue (8IR1464), facing East ........93

Figure 62: 1146 21st Street (8IR1475), facing Southeast .........................................................93

Figure 63: Edgar Town Historic District, along the West side of North 2nd Street, 

(8SL2801), facing Southwest ...........................................................................................94

Figure 64: Fairmont Manor / 5707 South Indian River Drive (8SL78), facing Northwest .....94

Figure 65: 9015 South Indian River Drive (8SL220), facing Southwest ................................95
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research xiii 

Figure 66: 6109 South Indian River Drive (8SL229), facing West .........................................95

Figure 67: 5309 South Indian River Drive (8SL234), facing West .........................................96

Figure 68: Riverhill / 4625 South Indian River Drive (8SL236), facing Southwest ...............96

Figure 69: Britt House / 4511 South Indian River Drive (8SL237), facing Southwest ...........97

Figure 70: N.E. Card House / 3915–3917 Indian River Drive (8SL238), facing Southwest ..97

Figure 71: Hoskins House / 2929 North Indian River Drive (8SL247), facing Southwest .....98

Figure 72: Old Fort Pierce City Hall / 315 “A” Avenue (8SL289), facing Southwest ............98

Figure 73: Sunrise Theater / 117 2nd Street South (8SL799), facing Southwest .....................99

Figure 74: 601 South 2nd Street (8SL825), facing Southwest ..................................................99

Figure 75: Frank Tyler House / 519 2nd Street South (8SL826), facing West .......................100

Figure 76: Banyon Belle Manor / 1001 South Indian River Drive (8SL917), facing 

Northwest .......................................................................................................................100

Figure 77: 1009 South Indian River Drive (8SL918), facing West .......................................101

Figure 78: 1029 South Indian River Drive (8SL920), facing West .......................................101

Figure 79: O. L. Peacock House / 2211 South Indian River Drive (8SL926), facing 

Northwest .......................................................................................................................102

Figure 80: Stephen Lesher House / 2501 South Indian River Drive (8SL930), facing 

Northwest .......................................................................................................................102

Figure 81: Carlton-Vest House / 2507 South Indian River Drive (8SL931), facing 

Northwest .......................................................................................................................103

Figure 82: Casa Del Rio / 2513 South Indian River Drive (8SL932), facing West ..............103

Figure 83: Babe Phelps House / 2521 South Indian River Drive (8SL933), facing 

Southwest .......................................................................................................................104

Figure 84: Shadetree Studio / 2900 Old Dixie Highway (8SL1599), facing Southeast ........104

Figure 85: East Coast Packers / 2130 Old Dixie Highway (8SL1922), facing Southeast .....105

Figure 86: Witham Field Airport (8MT1573), facing South .................................................105

Figure 87: Dixie Highway (8MT1621), facing North ...........................................................106

Figure 88: George W. Parks Store / Stuart Feed / 101 South Flagler Avenue (8MT46), 

facing East ......................................................................................................................106

Figure 89: Fern Building / 73 West Flagler Avenue (8MT84), facing North ........................107

Figure 90: Lyric Theatre / 59 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT86), facing Southeast .........107

Figure 91: East Coast Lumber and Supply / 49 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT130), 

facing West ....................................................................................................................108

Figure 92: Hobe Sound Cabinetry / 500 South Dixie Highway (8MT131), facing West .....108

Figure 93: Crary House / 161 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT307), facing Northeast .......109

Figure 94: 12200 Southeast Nassau Street (8MT838), facing South.....................................109

Figure 95: 250 North Flagler Road (8MT1066), facing Northeast ........................................110

Figure 96: 10th Street within the Kelsey City Layout (8PB13340), facing Southwest ..........110

Figure 97: Evergreen Cemetery (8PB218), facing South ......................................................111

Figure 98: St. John’s Baptist Church / 2010 A. E. Isaacs Avenue (8PB6064), facing 

Southeast ........................................................................................................................111
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The CRAR of the Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach was undertaken at the request of 

AAF – Operations LLC by Janus Research of Tampa, Florida. The Project proposes a 

privately owned, operated, and maintained intercity passenger rail service that will connect 

downtown Miami, Florida to downtown West Palm Beach, Florida with one stop in 

downtown Fort Lauderdale, Florida with continuing service to Orlando, Florida. To 

accommodate this, the Project proposes improvements to existing rail line within the existing 

FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW; addition of new or modified rail within the existing 

FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW; construction of new rail line along the SR 528 

transportation corridor; construction of new passenger rail stations in Miami, Fort 

Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando; upgrades to numerous bridges, highway 

crossings, and pedestrian crossings; addition of new track signal controls at key intersections; 

and construction of a new VMF near the Orlando station terminus. 

The Cultural Resources Assessment Report for All Aboard Florida from West Palm Beach to 

Miami Volumes I-IV (Janus Research) was completed in 2012. This document covered the 

following elements of the Project: restoration of passenger rail service along the FEC 

Railway Corridor from West Palm Beach to Miami, and the addition of three stations in 

Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach. This document was reviewed by FRA and 

SHPO. In a letter dated November 6, 2012 from the SHPO to FRA, the SHPO concurred 

with the National Register eligibility findings in the document and also agreed with the 

finding that the preferred alternative for these elements would have no adverse effect on the 

significant properties on the condition of continued consultation with the SHPO and locally 

affected parties. 

The project area covered as part of this documentation extends from Orlando to West Palm 

Beach via Cocoa Beach. As part of the current documentation the following elements of the 

Project are covered: (1) Airport Rail Alignment and VMF, the East-West Corridor from 

Cocoa to Orlando, and the North-South Corridor from West Palm Beach to Cocoa Beach; (2) 

An East-West Corridor of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, Florida, generally 

parallel to the existing State Road 528 (SR 528 or Beachline Expressway), which would 

extend the service to the Orlando International Airport, where the new VMF would be 

constructed; and (3) An extension of the North-South Corridor that includes approximately 

128.5 miles of rail improvements between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, Florida, within an 

existing, active freight rail ROW. 

The methodology used for this study provides a greater understanding of extant significant 

and potentially significant cultural resources within the APE, which will be used to assist in 

the overall approach to the various processes, and further guide the system alternatives 

analysis for this large-scale transportation project. The study included varying methodology 

based on the types of improvements proposed and consisted of extensive background 

research, reconnaissance survey, and cultural resources assessment survey work. This 

methodology was developed in coordination with the SHPO. The results of the study build 

upon the initial cultural resource information gathered for the FEC Amtrak Railway corridor 

during Volumes I, II, and III of the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project (PCI and Janus 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 2 

Research 2010). Access to the portion of the East-West Corridor located within one private 

landowner’s property was not yet coordinated during the current survey. Once access is 

coordinated, a supplemental addendum report will be completed to document the results of 

pedestrian survey and subsurface testing conducted within this portion of the East-West 

Corridor. 

This assessment was designed and implemented to assist in complying with the NEPA 

(Public Law 91-190) and Section 106 of the NHPA (Public Law 89-665, as amended), as 

implemented by 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). It was also conducted in 

compliance with Chapter 267, Florida Statutes; Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 303); the minimum field methods, data 

analysis, and reporting standards embodied in the FDHR’s CRM Standards and Operational 

Manual (February 2003), and Chapter 1A-46 (Archaeological and Historical Report 

Standards and Guidelines), Florida Administrative Code. All work conforms to professional 

guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology 

and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, as amended and annotated). 

The objective of this survey was to identify cultural resources within the APE and assess 

their eligibility for listing in the National Register according to the criteria set forth in 36 

CFR Section 60.4. Identification of the significant cultural resources was accomplished 

through extensive background research and desktop analyses for all segments and 

components of the current Project. Additionally comprehensive surveys for the East-West 

and North-South Corridors were undertaken. The previously recorded, significant historic 

and archaeological resources within the APEs for the segments were identified, and newly 

identified significant resources were documented as well. FMSF forms for the previously 

recorded and newly identified cultural resources are located in Appendices A, B and C. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 3 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The purpose of the privately-proposed project is to provide reliable and convenient intercity 

passenger rail transportation connecting Orlando and Miami, Florida, by extending 

previously-approved passenger rail service between West Palm Beach and Miami, that offers 

a safe and efficient alternative to automobile travel on the I-95 corridor, adds transportation 

capacity within that highway corridor, and encourages connectivity with other modes of 

transportation, all without governmental operating subsidies. 

AAF previously completed an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (AAF 

EA) (Federal Railroad Administration 2012) for intercity passenger rail service between 

Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida. FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (AAF 

FONSI) (FRA 2013) for the AAF EA in January 2013. To the extent that actions have not 

changed since the AAF EA, these would not be evaluated by FRA as part of this proposed 

action (Proposed Action), which will consist of a 235-mile intercity passenger rail service 

composed of the following two connected corridors and a new VMF: 

 An extension of the North-South Corridor that includes approximately 128.5 miles of 

rail improvements between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, Florida, within an existing, 

active freight rail ROW, as well as modifications to seven existing bridges along the 

66.5-mile portion of that ROW that was evaluated as part of the AAF EA and AAF 

FONSI (North-South Corridor); and 

 An east-west corridor of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, Florida, 

generally parallel to the existing SR 528 (SR 528 or Beachline Expressway), which 

would extend the service analyzed in the AAF EA and AAF FONSI to the MCO, 

where the new VMF would be constructed (East-West Corridor). 

A proposed station at MCO (Orlando Station) is expected to be developed by the Greater 

Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA) and would serve as the Orlando terminus for the 

Proposed Action. Development of this Orlando Station has been studied by GOAA in two 

previous environmental assessments (USDOT et al. 1998, 2005). 

The project area covered as part of this documentation extends from Orlando to West Palm 

Beach via Cocoa Beach. As part of the current documentation the following segments are 

covered, Airport Rail Alignment and VMF, the East-West Corridor from Cocoa to Orlando, 

and the North-South Corridor from West Palm Beach to Cocoa Beach. An East-West 

Corridor of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, Florida, generally parallel to the 

existing SR 528 (SR 528 or Beachline Expressway), which would extend the service to the 

MCO, where the new VMF would be constructed. An extension of the North-South Corridor 

that includes approximately 128.5 miles of rail improvements between West Palm Beach and 

Cocoa, Florida, within an existing, active freight rail ROW. The West Palm Beach to Miami 

portion of the project is covered in much of the overall project description; however, this 

segment has already been subject to survey in 2012, and has received SHPO concurrence on 

the survey results and a conditional no adverse effect finding as well. An overview map of 

the proposed Project is shown in Figure 1. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 4 

Figure 1: AAF System proposed Project including the East-West Corridor and the 

North-South Corridor
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 5 

The Project is being proposed to consist of the North-South Corridor and the East-West 

Corridor (Figure 1) and, generally, shall include the following: rail infrastructure 

improvements to complete the extension from West Palm Beach to Orlando (including the 

extension of the Positive Train Control (PTC) system and the development of all 

communications, signaling, safety and security systems in that corridor), seven new bridges 

along the 66.5-mile route from Miami to West Palm Beach, and a VMF in Orlando. 

Existing Circumstances 

The approximately 128.5 miles of the FEC Corridor between West Palm Beach and Cocoa is 

part of a larger existing 351-mile system currently operating as a freight railroad. 

Specifically, Florida East Coast Railway, L.L.C. (FECR), an affiliate of AAF’s parent 

company, operates 351 miles of mainline track within the FEC Corridor, from Miami to 

Jacksonville, with direct rail access to South Florida's ports and a high reliability and safety 

record. FECR owns the fee simple title in the ROW and owns the existing railroad 

infrastructure within the corridor over which FECR operates this freight rail service. AAF 

owns the permanent, perpetual and exclusive rights, privileges and easements on, over and 

across all of the real property within FECR’s main line ROW located in the State of Florida, 

for the passenger rail purposes being provided by AAF through the Project. 

Originally, the entire system was built and operated as a double track railroad but, since the 

early 1970s, much of the double track has been removed to balance railroad service needs 

with capacity and operating and maintenance costs. The railroad subgrade embankments and 

track bed still exist in most places along the system; and the consolidated sub-base, primary 

drainage systems and bridge substructures remain for a complete, double-track ROW railroad 

system. Existing ROW widths are typically at least 100 ft. throughout the existing system. 

The existing system was built and is maintained to FRA Class IV track standards, permitting 

freight and passenger operations. Ruling grades are predominantly 0.3 percent with the 

horizontal alignment predominantly tangent, with typical curves 2 degrees or less. In isolated 

locations where curves exceed 2 degrees, operating speeds are reduced. 

 

The lands within the approximately 40-mile East-West Corridor are controlled, operated and 

maintained by the GOAA, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) and 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Access to such lands is planned for the 

Project pursuant to leases or easements granting AAF the exclusive right to use the lands for 

the Project. It should be noted that the ultimate alignment of the East-West Corridor and land 

to be accessed through OOCEA remains subject to refinement and agreement between AAF 

and OOCEA because OOCEA is pursuing the potential acquisition of additional ROW from 

private landowners along SR 528 concurrent to the negotiations between OOCEA and AAF 

for access to portions of SR 528. 

With regard thereto, FDOT and OOCEA advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) on 

October 3, 2012 to procure a lease for the ROW located on SR 528 for the purposes of 

constructing and operating an intercity passenger rail service between Orlando and Miami. 

AAF’s proposal was determined to be responsive to the RFP, and FDOT and OOCEA have 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 6 

negotiated and executed lease agreements for the Project with AAF, which leases are being 

held in escrow pending the satisfaction of certain conditions. Similarly, AAF is currently 

negotiating with GOAA pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated June 

20, 2012, with regard to several aspects of the Project, including terms regarding the station, 

the route through the airport and a possible maintenance facility. Approval will be needed 

from the foregoing stakeholders that own land over which alignment alternatives shall be 

considered. 

It should also be noted that AAF will operate the proposed intercity passenger rail service in 

coordination with FECR's continued freight service within the corridor. The AAF capacity 

model runs have assumed operation of additional freight trains to accommodate the future 

freight growth, and these capacity improvements are aimed at keeping the freight service 

operating at a high level of on-time performance, in addition to providing a high degree of 

reliability for the AAF passenger service. Track and signal infrastructure necessary to 

achieve these goals are being provided as part of the Project. 

Further, AAF will contract with FECR to provide dispatching functions for the entire 

railway, for the movement of both FECR and AAF trains. The two existing dispatch districts 

will be expanded to include a third dispatch district, all in order to provide for the unified 

control of the tracks for both freight and passenger services. The three Jacksonville-based 

dispatch desks will be staffed for 24-hour operation. As noted above, this consolidated 

control of both freight and passenger train movement, plus the added rail infrastructure, will 

allow freight operations to continue to grow, safely and reliably, without adverse impact 

from the restoration of intercity passenger rail service within the corridor – all while allowing 

passenger trains to operate with a high degree of reliability. 

The planned usage of the FEC Corridor, taking into account AAF’s plan to return intercity 

passenger rail service together with the projected growth of freight train operations, was 

analyzed and discussed in detail for the proposed rail system between West Palm Beach and 

Miami pursuant to the AAF EA and AAF FONSI. The analysis of the extension of that 

system from West Palm Beach to Orlando shall be developed as part of the EIS process 

initiated by FRA. 

Alternatives 

Pursuant to the NEPA process, the No-Build Alternative and other alternatives for the Project 

shall be retained for further consideration, as described below. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative evaluated as part of this analysis involves no changes to the rail 

line within the FEC Corridor beyond those that have been currently planned and funded and 

no new rail line constructed parallel to SR 528. Under the No-Build Alternative, existing 

freight operations and maintenance infrastructure by FECR would be maintained. 

Specifically, the No-Build Alternative would maintain FECR’s operations as a freight 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 7 

provider within the FEC Corridor assuming an annual growth of approximately 5–7 percent 

between today and 2016 due to current FECR projects and 3 percent per year after 2016. 

Routine maintenance, safety improvements and as-needed track work would continue as 

planned. Also, the No-Build Alternative would include future planned and funded roadway, 

transit, air and other intermodal improvements within the study area, including the proposed 

stations and rail improvements from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida, that were 

considered in the AAF EA and approved by the public and regulatory community with the 

AAF FONSI issued by FRA for that proposed action. That AAF EA describes in detail the 

existing use and projected future use of the rail lines by freight and passenger trains within 

the FEC Corridor. 

In light of the foregoing, the No-Build Alternative includes future growth in freight and 

passenger rail service within the FEC Corridor. Furthermore, many of the rail line 

improvements along the FEC Corridor that are highlighted in this document as part of the 

Project would likely occur over time as part of the No-Build Alternative to accommodate 

freight growth and/or the introduction of other forms of passenger rail service. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, it is assumed that land use development would continue 

consistent within the approved and adopted local comprehensive, master and/or visioning 

plans of each municipality. For the purposes of this analysis, it was also assumed that only 

planned and funded improvements will be completed. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, AAF would not construct or operate a passenger rail system 

between Orlando and Miami. As such, the No Build Alternative is expected to result in 

increased traffic congestion and automobile dependence for long commutes because it does 

not provide an alternative mode of transportation to the use of personal vehicles between 

Orlando and Miami. The No-Build Alternative, by definition, would not respond to the stated 

need for the Project, nor would the traffic reduction goals and objectives of the various 

Federal, State, and Local transportation plans and programs be achieved. Under the No-Build 

Alternative, there would be no property acquisitions, no new rail line constructed parallel to 

SR 528, and no changes in the existing FEC Corridor from West Palm Beach to Cocoa, 

Florida (with the exception of routine rail maintenance and upgrades of the existing rail line 

for freight operations). The upgrades to the FEC Corridor contemplated as part of the Project, 

including the incorporation of the PTC system, would not, however, occur in the near term as 

part of the No Build Alternative. 

Although the No-Build Alternative fails to meet the purpose and need for the Project, it was 

retained as per NEPA and CEQ guidance in order to evaluate potential benefits and impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action in comparison to taking no action. 

Proposed Build Alternatives 

AAF proposes to connect Southeast and Central Florida with a privately owned and operated 

intercity passenger rail system through the proposed extension of the passenger rail service 

with independent utility along the 66.5 miles of the FEC Corridor connecting Miami, Fort 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 8 

Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach, which was the subject of the AAF EA and AAF FONSI 

issued prior to the date hereof. The extension of that service to Orlando includes a north 

south 128.5-mile extension from West Palm Beach to Cocoa along the FEC Corridor, work 

on seven bridges from Miami to West Palm Beach and an east-west 40-mile extension from 

Cocoa to the MCO, terminating at a passenger rail station there. 

The proposed Build Alternatives for this Project are divided into three categories: the NorthSouth Corridor, East-West Corridor, and the MCO Rail Alignment and VMF. The following 

sections discuss the Build Alternative for the North-South Corridor; the three Build 

Alternatives for the East-West Corridor, including a description of common elements on both 

the eastern and western ends of the corridor and the following three alignment alternatives 

for a section of that corridor where alignment variations are being proposed in order to 

address applicable landowner needs: East-West Corridor with Alternative A, East-West 

Corridor with Alternative C and East-West Corridor with Alternative E; and the Build 

Alternative for the MCO Rail Alignment and VMF. 

North-South Corridor Alternatives 

The Proposed Action for the North-South Corridor of the AAF Project includes one Build 

Alternative to be compared against the No-Build Alternative during the NEPA process. The 

use of the existing FEC Corridor, which is already in place, is the only feasible option for 

AAF based on Critical Determining Factors. Therefore, only one Build Alternative will be 

evaluated during the NEPA process for the North-South Corridor extension, which consists 

of 128.5 miles of existing and shared rail ROW along the FEC Corridor from Cocoa to West 

Palm Beach, Florida. The following new construction and improvements are proposed for 

existing rail facilities: 

 Improvements to approximately 128 miles of rail line within the existing FEC 

Corridor; 

 Improvement to the numerous bridges along the FEC Corridor including seven 

bridges from West Palm Beach to Miami that were not included in the EA; 

 Addition of approximately 109 miles of new rail within the existing FEC Corridor; 

 Upgrades to highway crossings and pedestrian crossings; and 

 Signal and grade crossing upgrades. 

East-West Corridor Alternatives 

The Proposed Action for the approximately 40 miles of the East-West Corridor from Cocoa 

to the MCO includes three Build Alternatives to be compared against the No-Build 

Alternative pursuant to the NEPA process. The three Build Alternatives (East-West Corridor 

Alternatives) include common elements on both the eastern and western ends of the EastWest Corridor, as well as a 17.4-mile stretch along SR 528 from one mile west of SR 417 to 

one mile east of SR 520 where the alignment varies. Specifically, three alternative 

alignments have been developed for the 17.4-mile stretch from one mile west of SR 417 to 

one mile east of SR 520 in collaboration with the affected landowner to address applicable 

requirements, as well as the future plans for that portion of the SR 528 corridor. Pursuant to 

NEPA, the No-Build Alternative and the East-West Corridor Alternatives will be analyzed 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 9 

for the entirety of the approximate 40 mile stretch of the East-West Corridor, with each of the 

East-West Corridor Alternatives consisting of the eastern and western ends and one of the 

following alignment alternatives for the corridor between SR 417 and SR 520: East-West 

Corridor with Alternative A, the East-West Corridor with Alternative C, and the East-West 

Corridor with Alternative E. 

The following three alignment variations for the portion of SR 528 from one mile west of SR 

417 to one mile east of SR 520 are identified in Figure 2 and are described in more detail 

below: East-West Corridor with Alternative A, the East-West Corridor with Alternative C, 

and the East-West Corridor with Alternative E. Each of these alternatives includes the 

addition of a bridge crossing over the Econlockhatchee River. The bridge alignment, span 

and profile will vary according to the specific alignment alternative. Specifically, crossing 

Econlockhatchee River will involve the construction of a railroad bridge and associated 

pilings that crosses the Econlockhatchee River with an approximate total bridge width of 60 

feet. 

As the following alternatives are reviewed and considered, it should be noted that the 

ultimate alignment and property to be accessed through FDOT and OOCEA remains subject 

to refinement and agreement between AAF and such parties. Further, it is important to note 

that OOCEA is pursuing the potential acquisition of additional ROW along SR 528 

concurrent to the negotiations between OOCEA and AAF for the lease of portions of SR 528. 

This potential acquisition may affect the viability of the alignment alternatives described 

below. For example, if additional ROW along SR 528 is acquired by OOCEA, AAF may be 

required to occupy a portion of such additional ROW. 

East-West Corridor with Alternative A 

East of SR 417, East-West Corridor with Alternative A is substantially located within the SR 

528 ROW (Figure 2). Under East-West Corridor with Alternative A, the new rail line will be 

located along the south side of SR 528 ROW. East-West Corridor with Alternative A 

comingles drainage with the SR 528 and requires extensive retaining walls and bridges in 

order to minimize its footprint and accommodate existing and future SR 528 infrastructure. 

As noted above, this alternative requires approval from OOCEA, as the landowner over 

which the alignment is planned. To obtain such approvals, certain conditions must be 

satisfied. For example, determinations need to be made that the land on which East-West 

Corridor with Alternative A is no longer essential for OOCEA’s expressway system and is 

therefore “surplus” land available for this Project. 

East-West Corridor with Alternative C – Straddle Alternative 

East-West Corridor with Alternative C “straddles” the SR 528 southern ROW line, with 10 

feet of the proposed rail line within the SR 528 ROW and approximately 90 feet south of the 

SR 528 ROW (Figure 2). This alternative includes an access road for the rail. The same 

conditions stated in the previous section would also need to be satisfied with regard to this 

alternative (i.e., the need for approval by OOCEA, as the landowner, and the “surplus” land 

determination, etc.) in order for it to be viable. 
Janus Research 

Figure 2: Map of East-West Corridor Alignment Alternatives Considered for 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 11 

East-West Corridor with Alternative E – South Offset 2 Alternative 

East-West Corridor with Alternative A and East-West Corridor with Alternative C may be 

developed into East-West Corridor with Alternative E if a “surplus” land determination is not 

available. In such event, East-West Corridor with Alternative E would represent a rail line 

location alternative with an alignment separate from the SR 528 ROW for approximately 14 

miles (parallel to SR 528, Figure 2). 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF Alternatives 

The extension of the passenger rail system west from SR 417 into MCO (Figure 3) includes 

the alignment of the passenger rail system and the VMF. Only one feasible location of these 

facilities was identified within MCO by GOAA that would allow for consistency with the 

future expansion of the airport and the construction of an MCO South Complex intermodal 

center to accommodate a passenger rail and minimize environmental impacts. The proposed 

track alignment passes through the MCO multimodal facility included in a separate EA for 

the South Terminal Complex in 1998 (Figure 3) that resulted in a FONSI issued by FAA and 

again in an EA for the MCO Intermodal Center and associated High Speed Rail and Light 

Rail Alignments in 2005 that also resulted in a FONSI issued by USDOT and the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) (USDOT et al. 2005). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Proposed Action for the VMF and associated rail corridor 

includes one Build Alternative to be evaluated against the No-Build Alternative during the 

NEPA process. GOAA has identified a 100-acre (approximate) site adjacent to the proposed 

rail corridor on its property that is a suitable location to construct a VMF. The potential 

impacts of this Build Alternative (MCO Alignment and VMF Alternative) will be evaluated 

during the NEPA process. 

The MCO Alignment and VMF Alternative connects the East-West Corridor to the MCO 

intermodal center and the VMF. The VMF is located two miles southwest of the proposed 

MCO Intermodal Station within GOAA property adjacent to and north of Boggy Creek Road. 

Figure 3 depicts the general VMF site location under consideration for the Project. Figure 4 

depicts the alignment through MCO allowing access to the MCO Intermodal Station. The site 

size is sufficient to allow an effective layout that will meet the current AAF operational 

requirements. The proximity to the MCO station will provide convenient access for 

employees and minimize non-revenue costs of movement between the proposed VMF site 

and the multimodal station. 

 

All necessary utilities are currently in place near the MCO Alignment and VMF Alternative, 

thereby minimizing additional utility service costs on and off site. The MCO Alignment and 

VMF Alternative is in close proximity to the existing wastewater treatment facility, which 

would allow for effective wastewater disposal. A reserve fire storage tank may be required to 

provide sufficient water for the needs of the fire suppression system of the proposed VMF. A 

24-inch diameter sanitary sewer force main currently crosses the MCO Alignment and VMF 

Alternative from Boggy Creek Road to the wastewater treatment facility. Depending upon 

the final facility configuration, this force main may require relocation to avoid conflicts with 

building and site improvements. 
Janus Research 

Figure 3: Proposed MCO VMF Location Plan
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 13 

Figure 4: Proposed Alignment through the Orlando International Airport 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 14 

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 

According to 36 CFR 800.16(d), the APE is the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic 

properties, if such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the 

undertaking as well as its geographical setting. The APE must include measures to identify 

and evaluate both archaeological and historical resources. Normally, archaeological and other 

below-ground resources will be affected by ground disturbing activities and changes in 

ownership status. For this reason, an archaeological APE typically consists of the footprint of 

the proposed project improvements. Structural resources and other above ground sites, 

however, are often impacted by those activities as well as alterations to setting, access and 

appearance. As a consequence, the survey methodologies for these two broad categories of 

sites differ. The APE for historic resources typically includes the area of the proposed 

improvements as well as the area within which potential visual effects for the improvements 

can be observed. Noise, traffic, light, and vibration are also considered. Because of the 

potential for visual and other impacts, the historic resources APE varied depending on the 

proposed improvements. 

Based on coordination with SHPO, an appropriate APE was established, which considered 

the improvements and activities that would be taking place on the North-South FEC Railway 

Corridor and the East-West Corridor and the potential effects that may result from the 

improvements. The APE for this project acknowledged the approved APE for the FEC 

Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I: A CRAS of the FEC Mainline in Brevard, Duval, 

Flagler, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia Counties, 

Florida (PCI and Janus Research 2010) as well as the CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail 

Project from West Palm Beach to Miami (Janus Research 2012). These previous APEs 

provided a basis for the development of the current APE. 

APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF 

For the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF, the existing cultural resources information from 

An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center 

Railroad (Randy and de la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport 

(Browning 1977), and the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange 

County, Florida (Janus Research 1998) was used. However, the alternatives were also 

reviewed in order to determine areas where resources may have since become historic. 

The archaeological APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF included the footprint of 

the alignment and VMF boundary. The historic resources APE included a buffer of 150 feet 

out from the edge of the proposed Airport Rail Alignment ROW or approximately 200 feet 

from the centerline, and the APE for the proposed VMF is the 47-acre footprint of the site 

itself. Maps showing the archaeological and historic resources APEs and identified cultural 

resources are included in Appendix D. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 15 

APE for the East-West Corridor 

For the East-West Corridor, the existing cultural resources information from the CRAS for 

the SR 528 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from SR 520 to the Port 

Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard Counties (Janus Research 2005) 

and the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida 

(Piper Archaeology 1990) was utilized; however, the alternatives were also reviewed in order 

to determine the areas located outside of the previous study areas. 

The archaeological APE for the East-West Corridor Main Line included the footprint or 

limits of disturbance for all alternatives. The historic resources APE includes the footprint of 

all alternatives as well as adjacent properties for a distance of up to 150 feet from the 

proposed ROW. In areas where the limits of disturbance were located to the south side of the 

existing SR 528 ROW, the historic resources APE considered the existing SR 528 facility as 

a logical boundary and did not extend beyond the SR 528 ROW to the north. Similarly, in 

areas where the limits of disturbance were located to the north of the existing SR 528 facility, 

the historic resources APE considered the existing SR 528 ROW as the logical boundary and 

did not extend beyond the SR 528 ROW to the south. Maps showing the archaeological and 

historic resources APEs and identified cultural resources are included in Appendix E. 

APE for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line 

The archaeological APE for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line is limited to 

the existing FEC Railway ROW. For the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line, the 

historic resources APE consists of existing FEC Railway ROW, as no additional ROW 

outside of the corridor is necessary as part of this project. Resources which cross the railway 

(i.e., historic canals, seawalls, spurs of the railway, and overpasses) were not included within 

the APE, as there is no potential for impacts based on both the nature of the proposed 

improvements and the nature of the resources. 

Significant historic resources located adjacent to the FEC Railway Corridor ROW, within a 

minimum distance of 150 feet from the existing ROW, were also identified through 

background research and reconnaissance survey. This included both the parcels located 

adjacent to the ROW that extended more than 150 feet out from the existing ROW as well as 

all of the smaller parcels that are located within 150 feet of the existing ROW. Maps showing 

the archaeological and historic resources APE, identified cultural resources within the 

railway ROW, and significant historic resources identified adjacent to the railway ROW are 

included in Appendix F. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 16 

METHODS 

All cultural resource investigations and consultations are conducted in accordance with 

Section 106 of the NRHP and its implementing regulations for Protection of Historic 

Properties at 36 CFR Part 800. The investigations and consultations also comply with the 

field methods, data analysis, and reporting standards embodied in FDHR’s Cultural Resource 

Management (CRM) Standards and Operational Manual (February 2003), and Chapter 1A46 (Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines), FAC. All work will 

also conform to professional guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, as amended and 

annotated). 

AAF conducted initial consultation with the Florida Division of Historic Resources (FDHR), 

which is the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), on March 28, 2013 prior to the 

initiation of the cultural resources survey to establish a methodology and APE. On July 8, 

2013, FRA and SHPO held a conference call to discuss the cultural resource survey 

methodology, APE, and Section 106 process timeline. 

The methodology used for this study provides a greater understanding of extant significant 

and potentially significant cultural resources within the APE, which will be used to assist in 

the overall approach to the various processes, and further guide the alternatives analysis for 

this large-scale transportation project. The results of the study build upon the initial cultural 

resource information gathered for the FEC Railway corridor during the Cultural Resources 

Reconnaissance Study of the South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis (Janus 

Research 2006), Phase 2 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Study of the South Florida East 

Coast Corridor Transit Analysis (Janus Research 2009), and the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail 

Project (PCI and Janus Research 2010), and will contribute to the data being utilized by the 

various environmental disciplines. 

The current methodology was developed in conjunction with the SHPO, and is similar to 

previous SHPO-approved methodologies that have been applied to other large-scale transit 

projects. This methodology provides key information such as existing significant historic and 

archaeological resources, and the potential for additional unrecorded significant resources. 

An updated archaeological and historical literature and background information search 

pertinent to the project APE was conducted to determine the types, chronological placement, 

and location patterning of cultural resources within or adjacent to the APE. This included a 

search of county and local site inventories, unpublished CRM reports, county property 

appraiser records, and other relevant historical research materials. Field surveys and 

reconnaissance work was conducted to identify historic resources eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

As different survey methodologies were used for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF 

Footprint, East-West Corridor, and North-South Corridor, these methodologies are discussed 

in detail in their respective sections of the report. A Survey Log for the project is included in 

Appendix G. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 17 

Consultation and Certified Local Government and Local Informants Coordination 

The FRA formally initiated the Section 106 process as part of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Project (USDOT and FRA 

2013). As part of the NOI, FRA provided information about the Project and identified that 

FRA is seeking participation and input of interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native 

American groups, and other private organizations and individuals. FRA will coordinate 

compliance of Section 106 with the preparation of the DEIS (Council on Environmental 

Quality and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP] 2013). This Project is being 

coordinated with appropriate potential consulting parties pursuant to Section 106 of the 

NHPA and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) guidance. 

At an initial March 28, 2013 consultation meeting between AAF and the SHPO, the SHPO 

determined that unlike the West Palm Beach to Miami AAF Passenger Rail Project, this 

Project was not crossing or near historic districts and would not be affecting railroad 

terminals except at the MCO. Therefore, the same level of coordination with local 

preservation planning representatives was not warranted. At the July 8, 2013 conference call, 

FRA, SHPO, and AAF discussed potential consulting parties and concurred with this 

determination. 

Five public scoping meetings were held in May 2013 where information about the Section 

106 process was available for the public and other interested parties and a cultural resources 

specialist was made available as well to address any questions raised. SHPO has confirmed 

that these public meetings would provide adequate opportunity for consultation. 

Due to previous Section 106 consultation meetings in affected communities (e.g., West Palm 

Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami), SHPO determined that no additional separate Section 

106 meetings were necessary. To date, no written requests from individuals or organizations 

to participate as consulting parties have been received by FRA. 

FRA sent a letter concerning the Project to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

because a known archaeological site is located near the Hobe Sound National Wildlife 

Refuge. To date, no request has been made by the USFWS to be a consulting party. 

On April 23, 2013, FRA initiated consultation via e-mail and letter with five Native 

American Nations to determine whether traditional use areas or sacred lands will be crossed 

by the Project. The list of Native American tribes to be consulted was compiled in 

consultation with SHPO and using prior contacts with Native American tribes for FRA 

regulated projects in Florida. Efforts to identify other interested Native American tribes 

included requesting all those who received letters to notify FRA and AAF of any additional 

groups or individuals who might be interested in providing comment. A list of Native 

American tribes contacted is included in Table 1. To date, only the Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) has responded. A June 6, 2013 THPO response 

letter provided no scoping comments concerning the Project but requested Project updates 

and a copy of the DEIS when it is completed. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 18 

Table 1. Native American Consultation Contacts 

Agency (Native 

American) Contact Name Date of Correspondence Date of Response 

Miccosukee Tribe of 

Florida 

Steve Terry, Land 

Resource Manager 

April 23, 2013 No Response To Date 

Muscogee Creek 

Nation 

Emman Spain, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response To Date 

Poarch Band of 

Creek Indians 

Robert Thrower, THPO April 23, 2013 No Response To Date 

Seminole Nation of 

Oklahoma 

Chief Leonard M. Harjo April 23, 2013 No Response To Date 

Seminole Tribe of 

Florida 

Paul Backhouse, THPO April 23, 2013 June 6, 2013 

Coordination between FRA, SHPO and Section 106 consulting parties will continue 

throughout the development of the DEIS for this Project. 

Five Certified Local Governments (CLG) and one local informant were also contacted by 

Janus Research regarding information on locally designated historic resources. Three CLGs 

responded to these inquiries by Janus Research. Table 2 below summarizes this coordination: 

Table 2. Certified Local Government/Local Informant Contacts Regarding Potential Locally 

Designated Cultural Resources located within the Project APE 

City/Town CLG Contact/ 

Local Informant Response Contact Date 

Response 

Date County 

City of 

Melbourne 

Kelly Delmonico, 

Planner 

No locally designated 

resources within 150 

feet of the rail line. 

Property list of locally 

designated resources 

provided. 

June 10, 

2013 

June 17, 

2013 

Brevard 

Town of 

Lake Park 

Nadia Di Tommaso, 

Community 

Development 

Director 

Property list of locally 

designated resources 

provided. 

July 9, 

2013 

July 10, 

2013 

Palm 

Beach 

Town of 

Jupiter 

David M. Kemp, 

AICP 

Principal Planner 

Property list of locally 

designated resources 

provided. 

July 9, 

2013 

July 10, 

2013 

Palm 

Beach 

City of Ft. 

Pierce 

Kori Benton, Historic 

Preservation Officer 

No Response July 9, 

2013 

N/A St. Lucie 

N/A Christian Davenport, 

County 

Archaeologist 

No Response July 10, 

2013 

N/A Palm 

Beach 

N/A Leslie Olson, 

Planning Manager 

No Response June 10, 

2013 

N/A St. Lucie 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 19 

AIRPORT RAIL ALIGNMENT AND VMF 

Project Location 

The Airport Rail Alignment and VMF are located within Orange County on the Pine Castle 

(1953, Photorevised [PR] 1980) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map in 

Township 23 South, Range 30 East, Section 34 and Township 24 South, Range 30 East, 

Sections 3, 10, and 15–17. The locations of the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF are 

illustrated on the USGS quadrangle maps accompanying the Survey Log in Appendix G. 

Precontact and Historic Overview 

A summary of the pre-contact and historic context of the project corridor, describing the 

important events, locations, resources, and individuals associated with the project APE was 

prepared and included in the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange 

County, Florida (Janus Research 1998). In a letter dated August 12, 1998, the SHPO 

concurred with the findings of this CRAS and found the report and all sections to be 

complete and sufficient. This information has been excerpted and is included for reference in 

Appendix H. 

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review 

A comprehensive search of the FMSF and literature review was performed to determine the 

locations of all previously recorded archaeological resources within the archaeological APE, 

and previously recorded National Register–listed or eligible, historic resources located within 

the historic resources APE1

. In addition, local information provided by the major 

municipalities located in the APE was reviewed to determine the potential for unrecorded 

and locally listed resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys 

An extensive search of pertinent literature and records of the surrounding region as well as 

any archaeological and historical assessments of other tracts of land within or adjacent to the 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF was conducted to determine the locations of any 

previously recorded archaeological and historic resources. This background research 

identified five previously conducted cultural resource surveys that have been performed 

within and adjacent to the APE. These previously conducted surveys are listed in Table 3. 

 

1 The search of the FMSF data included the most current information provided by the FMSF on a quarterly basis as well as Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) data maintained by the FMSF. This information is based on the most current FMSF data, which is not a 

comprehensive inventory of cultural resources and their significance and may not reflect existing conditions. It is important to remember 

that the FMSF serves as an archive and repository of information about Florida’s recorded cultural resources. It represents an inventory of 

resources for which available information exists and describes their condition at a particular point of time. Because the inventory of 

resources is not all-inclusive on a statewide basis, gaps in data may exist. It can be used as guide but should not be used to determine the 

FDHR/SHPO official position about the significance of a resource. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 20 

Table 3. Previous Cultural Resource Surveys Conducted Within or Adjacent to the Airport 

Railway Alignment and VMF by Survey Number 

Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

363 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. 

Stanton Energy Center Railroad 

Daniel, Randy and 

Francisco de la Fuente 

1981 Orange 

469 Improvements to the Orlando 

International Airport 

William, Browning D. 1977 Orange 

5389 CRAS of the GOAA’s South 

Terminal Complex EA in Orange 

County, Florida 

Janus Research 1998 Orange 

7401 Identification and Evaluation of 

Historic Properties within the 

One-Half Mile APE of the Four 

Proposed 40-Foot Orlando 

International Airport 

Telecommunications Towers, 

Orange County, Florida 

Parker, Brian 2001 Orange 

12574 CRAS Report Florida High Speed 

Rail Authority PD&E Study from 

Tampa to Orlando Hillsborough, 

Polk, Osceola, and Orange 

Counties, Florida 

Archaeological 

Consultants, Inc. and 

Janus Research 

2003 Orange 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

A review of the existing cultural resources information from An Archaeological and 

Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and de 

la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), and 

the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998) identified one archaeological site within the Airport Rail Alignment and 

VMF APE. 

South Terminal Northeast (8OR8277) is a low-density precolumbian artifact scatter located 

within the Airport Rail Alignment. This site has been previously determined by the SHPO to 

be ineligible for listing in the National Register. The location of this site relative to the 

archaeological APE is illustrated on the aerial mapping included in Appendix D. 

The updated FMSF data search confirmed that no additional archaeological sites have been 

recorded within or adjacent to the archaeological APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and 

VMF since the initial surveys were conducted. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 21 

Previously Recorded Historic Resources 

A review of the existing cultural resources information from An Archaeological and 

Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and de 

la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), and 

the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998) identified no previously recorded historic resources within the Airport Rail 

Alignment and VMF APE. In addition, the FMSF search confirmed that no historic resources 

have been newly recorded within the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF APE since these 

previous surveys were conducted. 

A review of the Orange County Property Appraiser data identified one parcel, One Jeff 

Fuqua Boulevard, within the APE that has an Actual Year Built (AYRB) date indicative of 

containing historic resources (1965 and earlier). According to the property appraiser data, 

this parcel is over 10,000 acres in size and contains approximately 40 buildings. A detailed 

review of the property appraiser parcel data identified that all but one of the buildings on the 

parcel were constructed between 1982 and 2007. The one remaining building has an AYRB 

date of 1960 and is located approximately 0.6 miles outside of the Airport Rail Alignment 

and VMF APE to the west. 

Background Research and Field Methods 

The desktop analysis for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF revisits the results of several 

previous surveys as these surveys contained the current APE, including An Archaeological 

and Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and 

de la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), 

and the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998). 

Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological analysis included a desktop analysis which consisted of an archaeological 

literature and background information search to identify the types, cultural affiliation and 

location of known archaeological sites within the respective study areas. This includes a 

search of the FMSF, county and local site inventories, unpublished CRM reports, and other 

relevant historical research materials. 

This desktop analysis reviewed the locations of archaeological sites to determine whether or 

not archaeological resources identified during the previous surveys are located within or 

adjacent to the current APE. An updated search of FMSF data was also conducted to identify 

any archaeological resources that have been recorded or determined locally significant since 

the previous surveys were completed. The locations of the known archaeological site within 

the archaeological APE was marked on aerial maps and included in Appendix D. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 22 

Historic Resources 

Although the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF APE for historic resources was also 

previously surveyed during the surveys noted above, it is possible that additional resources 

could have become historic since these previous surveys were undertaken. Therefore, an 

updated desktop analysis was carried out in order to ensure that no additional historic 

resources were located within the current project APE. 

This updated desktop analysis included a search of the FMSF and unpublished CRM reports 

in order to identify any historic resources located within the APE established for the Airport 

Rail Alignment and VMF. The records of the Orange County Property Appraiser were also 

reviewed, to determine the approximate dates of construction of buildings that have not been 

previously documented in the FMSF throughout the APE. 

 

Results 

Archaeological Resources 

The archaeological APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF is included entirely within 

the boundaries of archaeological investigations conducted for An Archaeological and 

Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and de 

la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), and 

the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998). 

A review of these previous surveys and an updated search of the FMSF data identified one 

previously recorded archaeological site within the archaeological resources APE established 

for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. South Terminal Northeast (8OR8277) is located in 

Orange County within the Airport Rail Alignment and is a low-density precolumbian lithic 

scatter consisting of two lithic waste flakes. The SHPO previously determined this site to be 

ineligible for listing in the National Register in 1998. 

Historic Resources 

The survey resulted in the identification of no historic resources located within the APE for 

the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. A review of the Orange County property appraiser 

records showed that only one parcel, the Orlando International Airport, contained any 

historic structures. Furthermore, the records show that only one structure on this parcel is 

historic. This structure is a 900 square foot circa 1960 building. A review of the historic 

aerial photography of the airport parcel shows that the historic building is located roughly 0.6 

miles from the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. No additional historic resources were 

identified within the APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 23 

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR FROM ORLANDO TO COCOA 

Project Location 

The East-West Corridor between Orlando and Cocoa is located within portions of Orange 

and Brevard counties on the Courtenay (1976), Lake Poinsett NW (1953, PR 1970), 

Narcoossee NE (1953, PR 1980), Narcoossee NW (1953, PR 1970), Pine Castle (1953, PR 

1980), and Sharpes (1949, PR 1980) USGS quadrangle maps in the following Townships, 

Ranges, and Sections: 

 Township 23 South, Range 30 East, Sections 34–36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 31 East, Sections 31–36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 32 East, Sections 31–36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 33 East, Sections 31–36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 34 East, Sections 25–30 and 36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 35 East, Sections 30 and 31; 

 Township 24 South, Range 35 East, Sections 5, 6, and 8–13; and 

 Township 24 South, Range 36 East, Sections 17 and 18. 

The location of the East-West Corridor is illustrated on the USGS quadrangle maps 

accompanying the Survey Log in Appendix G. 

Precontact and Historic Overview 

A summary of the pre-contact and historic context of the project corridor, describing the 

important events, locations, resources, and individuals associated with the project APE was 

prepared and included in the CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E Study from SR 520 to the Port 

Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard Counties (Janus Research 2005) 

and the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida 

(Piper Archaeology 1990). In letters respectively dated April 15, 2005 and April 19, 1990, 

the SHPO concurred with the findings of both CRAS reports and found these reports and all 

sections to be complete and sufficient. This information has been excerpted from the 2005 

and 1990 reports and is included for reference in Appendix H. 

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review 

A comprehensive search of the FMSF and literature review was performed to determine the 

locations of all previously recorded archaeological resources and historic resources within 

the APE2

. In addition, the 1990 and 2005 CRAS reports and local information provided by 

 

2 The search of the FMSF data included the most current information provided by the FMSF on a quarterly basis as well as GIS data 

maintained by the FMSF. This information is based on the most current FMSF data, which is not a comprehensive inventory of cultural 

resources and their significance and may not reflect existing conditions. It is important to remember that the FMSF serves as an archive and 

repository of information about Florida’s recorded cultural resources. It represents an inventory of resources for which available 

information exists and describes their condition at a particular point of time. Because the inventory of resources is not all-inclusive on a 

statewide basis, gaps in data may exist. It can be used as guide but should not be used to determine the FDHR/SHPO official position about 

the significance of a resource. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 24 

the major municipalities located in the APE were reviewed to determine the potential for 

unrecorded and locally listed resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys 

An extensive search of pertinent literature and records of the surrounding region as well as 

any archaeological and historical assessments of other tracts of land within or adjacent to the 

East-West Corridor was conducted to determine the locations of any previously recorded 

archaeological and historic resources. This background research identified 25 previously 

conducted cultural resource surveys that have been performed within or adjacent to the EastWest Corridor. A detailed list of these previously conducted surveys is provided by FMSF 

Survey No. in Appendix I. 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

A review of the existing cultural resources information from the CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E 

Study from SR 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard 

Counties (Janus Research 2005) and the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch 

Development Site, Orange County, Florida (Piper Archaeology 1990) identified no 

archaeological sites within or adjacent to the East-West Corridor. An FMSF data search 

confirmed that no archaeological sites have been recorded within the unsurveyed portions of 

the archaeological APE for the East-West Corridor and that no new sites have been recorded 

within or adjacent to the previously surveyed portions of the APE since the initial surveys 

were conducted. 

 

Previously Recorded Historic Resources 

An FMSF background search was conducted within the East-West Corridor APE to identify 

any previously documented historic resources. Two previously recorded historic buildings 

(8BR1735 and 8BR1736), one historic resource group (8OR9851), and three historic linear 

resources (8BD1870, 8BD2697, and 8OR9850) were identified within the APE in Brevard 

and Orange Counties. 8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8BD1870, and 8BD2697 are located near the 

eastern end of the East-West Corridor APE in Brevard County, whereas OR9850 and 

8OR9851 are located near the western end in Orange County. Of these six previously 

recorded historic resources, only the FEC Railway (8BR1870) is eligible for listing in the 

National Register. The five remaining resources have been determined ineligible for the 

National Register by the SHPO. Table 4 below lists each of the previously recorded historic 

resources identified during the background search. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 25 

Table 4. Previously Recorded Historic Resources Identified within the Historic Resources APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style 

SHPO Evaluation of 

National Register 

Significance 

8BR1735 Altered Image Tattoo / 

2417 N. Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1949 Frame 

Vernacular 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1736 Jumping Flea Market / 

2507 N. Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1940 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1870 Florida East Coast 

Railway 

c. 1886 Railroad Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR2697 US Highway 1 / Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1927 Roadway Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8OR9850 Bull Slough Drainage 

Ditches 

c. 1947 Drainage 

Ditches 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8OR9851 Gee Bee Resource 

Group 

1940s Mixed District Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

Background Research and Field Methods 

The desktop analysis for the East-West Corridor relies heavily on the results of several 

previous surveys, including the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site

(Piper Archaeology 1990) and the CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E Study, from SR 520 to the 

Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange (Janus Research 2005). These previous projects are 

important for the current project because the previous surveys included much of the current 

APE, and the results and conclusions of both of these previous projects were approved and 

accepted by the SHPO. 

Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological analysis conducted consisted of an archaeological literature and background 

information search to identify the types, cultural affiliation and location of known 

archaeological sites within the APE. This included a search of the FMSF, county and local 

site inventories, unpublished CRM reports, and other relevant historical research materials. 

Based on the previous research, areas of moderate and high archaeological probability were 

created for those portions of the East-West Corridor Main Line APE that fell outside of the 

boundaries of the Piper Archaeology (1990) and Janus Research (2005) surveys. 

Archaeological fieldwork including pedestrian survey and subsurface shovel testing was 

conducted within the previously unsurveyed areas located within the expected preferred 

alternative (Alternative E and the common elements on both the eastern and western ends of 

the East-West Corridor). Excavated shovel tests were round and approximately 50 

centimeters (20 inches) in diameter. Shovel tests were dug to a minimum depth of 1 meter 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 26 

(39 inches), unless excavation was inhibited by pit slumping due to the influx of water or by 

subsurface obstructions such as solid road fill, limestone bedrock, or buried utilities. All 

excavated soil was screened through 6.4-millimeter (1⁄4-inch) hardware cloth suspended from 

portable wooden frames. Standard archaeological methods for recording field data was 

followed throughout the project. The identification number, location, stratigraphic profile, 

soil descriptions, and environmental setting were recorded for every shovel test excavated. 

The locations of all shovel tests were recorded on field aerial maps (Appendix E). Zones of 

moderate potential for site probability were tested with shovel tests spaced at 50-meter 

intervals, while zones of high site potential were tested with shovel tests spaced at 25-meter 

intervals. 

Historic Resources 

Historic resources fieldwork to identify resources within the East-West Corridor APE was 

conducted in July of 2013. An architectural historian and one technical assistant conducted a 

historic resources survey in order to ensure that historic resources built during or before 1965 

within and adjacent to the ROW were identified, properly mapped, and photographed. 

The historic resources survey used standard field methods to identify and record historic 

resources. Resources with features indicative of 1965 or earlier construction materials, 

building methods, or architectural styles were noted on aerial photographs. For each resource 

newly identified during the preliminary assessment, FMSF forms were filled out with field 

data, including notes from site observations and research findings. Updated FMSF forms for 

previously recorded historic resources were only to be completed if the resource showed 

notable alterations since its previous recordation. The estimated dates of construction, 

distinctive features, and architectural style or engineering design were noted. Photographs 

were taken with a high resolution digital camera. A log was kept to record the resource’s 

physical location and compass direction of each photograph. 

All historic resources identified within the East-West Corridor APE were marked on aerial 

maps and included in Appendix E. Each resource’s individual significance was then 

evaluated for its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register. Historic physical 

integrity was determined from site observations, field data, and photographic documentation. 

Concentrations of historic resources within the study area were also noted in terms of whether 

they exhibited potential for inclusion within current or potential historic districts. 

Project Research Design and Site Location Model 

The objective of a research design is to provide a project-specific guide for the location, 

identification, and evaluation of cultural resources. Since archaeological field testing for the 

current project will be limited to the East-West Corridor, this project research design focuses 

on this segment of the project. 

 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 27 

Cultural resource assessment surveys in the East and Central cultural region have 

demonstrated that certain environmental locales were preferred for precolumbian and early 

historic groups. Predictive models enable the research to stratify project areas into zones of 

site potential based upon the co-occurrence of relevant environmental variables. The relative 

importance of each of these variables depends upon the composite environmental setting. 

Precontact Archaeological Site Location Model 

Four environmental factors are typically employed in predicting site locations: soil type (soil 

drainage), distance to fresh (potable) water, distance to hardwood hammocks, and 

topography. Soil type and relative elevation deal with the water drainage pattern found in a 

particular area. Soils with an organic pan, with underlying clays or marl, and with slow to 

moderate internal drainage tend to retain water. Areas with a low elevation relative to the 

perched water system also tend to be inundated. Although wet areas can contain abundant 

wildlife and plant resources, they make relatively poor habitation areas when better-drained 

locations are available. 

Detailed soil types within the East-West Corridor range from very poorly drained to 

excessively well drained. The drainage characteristics and environmental associations of 

detailed soil types within the East-West Corridor are listed in Table 5. 

Table 5. Drainage Characteristics and Environmental Associations of Detailed Soil Types 

within the East-West Corridor 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Excessively Well 

Drained 

Candler Fine Sand, 0 to 5 

percent slopes 

This nearly level to gently sloping soil is found 

on uplands. The natural vegetation is scattered 

slash pine, sand pine, longleaf pine, bluejack 

oak, chapman oak, scrub live oak and turkey 

oak. The understory includes Indiangrass, 

chalky bluestem, hairy panicum, pineland 

threeawn and annual forbs 

Paola Fine Sand, 5 to 12 

percent Slopes 

This sloped soil is found on the sides of high 

ridges. The natural vegetation includes sand 

pine and an understory of scattered saw 

palmetto, rosemary and cactus. 

St. Lucie Fine Sand, 0 to 5 

percent slopes 

 This nearly level to slightly sloped soil is 

located on high dune dunelike ridges and 

isolated knolls. The natural vegetation includes 

sand pine and an understory of scattered saw 

palmetto, rosemary and cactus. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 28 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Moderately Well 

Drained 

Pomello Fine Sand, 0 to 5 

percent slopes. 

This nearly level to gently sloping soil is 

located on low ridges and knolls on the 

flatwoods. The natural vegetation is longleaf, 

sand and slash pine. The understory includes 

creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, 

running oak, saw palmetto and pineland 

threeawn. 

Pomello Sand This nearly level soil is located on broad low 

ridges and low knolls. The natural vegetation 

includes a few, scattered, second growth 

longleaf pine and a undergrowth of scrubby live 

oak, saw palmetto and native grasses. 

Tavares Fine Sand, 0 to 5 

percent slopes. 

This nearly level to gently sloping soil is 

located on low ridges and knolls on the 

uplands. The natural vegetation is water oak, 

laurel oak, live oak, turkey oak, slash and 

longleaf pine. The understory includes 

creeping bluestem, lopsided indiangrass and 

pineland threeawn. 

Poorly Drained 

Basinger Sand This is a nearly level soil found in sloughs in 

poorly defined drainageways and depressions 

in the flatwoods. Most of the acreage is in 

natural vegetation of pine land threeawn and 

thinly scattered pine. 

EauGallie Sand This is a nearly level soil on broad low ridges in 

flatwoods. The natural vegetation is open 

forest of second-growth slash pine and an 

understory of saw-palmetto, runner oak, native 

grass, some gallberry and scattered cabbage 

palm. 

Felda Fine Sand This nearly level soil is found in low, broad, 

poorly defined drainageways on the flatwoods. 

The natural vegetation is cabbage palm, 

scattered slash pine, waxmyrtle, and laurel 

oak. The understory includes saw palmetto, 

pineland three-awn, bluestem, sand cordgrass, 

blue maidencane, low panicum and various 

weeds and grasses. 

Felda Fine Sand, 

Occasionally flooded 

This nearly level soil is found on the flood plain 

of the Wekiva River and its major tributaries. 

The natural vegetation is laurel oak, red maple, 

cabbage palm, slash pine, and sweetgum. The 

understory includes scattered saw palmetto, 

pineland three-awn, maidencane and 

waxmyrtle. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 29 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Poorly Drained 

Felda Fine Sand, Frequently 

flooded 

This nearly level soil is found on the flood plain 

the Econlokhatchee River and of other minor 

streams. The natural vegetation is red maple, 

scattered cabbage palm, slash pine, and 

sweetgum. The understory includes scattered 

saw palmetto, pine three-awn, blue 

maidencane and waxmyrtle. 

Holopaw Sand This nearly level soil is in broad flat areas on 

river flood plains and in small depressions and 

poorly defined drainage ways. The natural 

vegetation in large part consists of sand 

cordgrass and scattered cabbage palm. 

Immokalee Sand This nearly level soil is on broad areas of 

flatwoods , on low ridges between sloughs and 

in low, narrow areas between sand ridges and 

lakes and ponds. The natural vegetation is saw 

palmetto, gallberry, longleaf and slash pine and 

wiregrass. 

Immokalee Fine Sand This nearly level soil is found on broad 

flatwoods. The natural vegetation is slash pine. 

The understory is saw palmetto, running oak, 

inkberry, fetterbush, creeping bluestem and 

waxmyrtle. 

 Malabar Fine This nearly level soil is found in low, narrow to 

broad sloughs and poorly defined 

drainageways. The natural vegetation I s slash 

pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm, and laurel 

oak. The understory includes scattered saw 

palmetto, waxmyrtle, inkberry, pineland 

threeawn, panicum, maidencane and other 

various sedges and grasses. 

Myakka Sand This nearly level soil is found in shallow 

depressions in the flatwoods. The natural 

vegetation includes maidencane or St. 

Johnswort. Clumps of water tolerant trees are 

in some places. Water lilies and flags are in 

places where standing water is deepest. 

Myakka Sand, Ponded This nearly level soil is found in broad areas of 

flatwoods. The natural vegetation is longleaf 

and slash pine. The understory includes 

inkberry, running oak, saw palmetto, 

waxmyrtle, fetterbush, pineland threeawn, 

bluestem, panicum and other grasses. 

Ona Fine Sand This nearly level soil is found on broad palm 

hammocks and in low sloughs. The natural 

vegetation is thick stands of cabbage palm and 

pine and a few scattered live oaks. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 30 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Poorly Drained 

Pineda Sand, Dark surface 

Variant 

This nearly level soil is found on flood plains. 

The natural vegetation is cabbage palm, water 

oak, slash pine and laurel oak. The understory 

includes waxmyrtle, blue maidencane, chalky 

bluestem, bluejoint panicum, scattered saw 

palmetto, sedges and various weeds and 

grasses. 

Pineda Fine Sand, Frequent 

Flooded 

This nearly level soil is found in areas that 

boarder sloughs and shallow depressions. The 

natural vegetation is cabbage palm, longleaf 

and slash pine. The understory includes 

scattered saw palmetto, lopsided indiangrass, 

chalky bluestem, broom sedges bluestem, 

creeping bluestem, inkberry, hairy panicum, 

pineland threeawn and waxmyrtle. 

Pinellas Fine sand The nearly level soil is found on broad 

flatwoods. The natural vegetation is long leaf 

and slash pine. The understory includes 

lopsided indiangrass, inkberry, saw palmetto, 

pineland threeawn, waxmyrtle, bluestem, 

panicum and other grasses. 

Smyrna Fine Sand This nearly level soil is formed in marine 

sediment on low lying plains on the flatwoods. 

St. Johns Fine Sand This nearly level soil is found on broad low 

ridges in the flatwoods. The natural vegetation 

consists of second growth of pond pine and 

slash pine with a dense understory of saw 

palmetto and native grasses. 

St. Johns Sand This nearly level soil is found in grassy 

sloughs, low palm hammocks and broad low 

areas. In the sloughs the natural vegetation is 

marsh grasses. The hammocks are wooded 

with cabbage palm, and scattered live oak and 

pine. The broad low areas have have saw 

palmetto, St. Johnswort, wax myrtle, native 

grasses and widely spread pine and cypress 

trees. 

Vakaria Sand Nearly level soil found in flatwoods. Native 

vegetation is longleaf pine, slash pine, and 

cabbage palms. The understory consists of 

saw palmetto, running oak, inkberry, and 

fetterbush. 

Wabasso sand This nearly level soil is formed in marine 

sediments. 

Wauberg Fine Sand Nearly level soil is found on flood plains of 

rivers and creeks. Natural vegetation is 

cabbage palm, wetland hardwoods, and an 

understory of saw palmetto. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 31 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Poorly Drained 

Fluvaquents This nearly level soil is formed in marine 

sediments. 

Wauberg Fine Sand This nearly level soil is located in marshy 

depressions in the flatwoods, in broad areas on 

flood plains and in poorly defined 

drainageways. The natural vegetation is 

commonly grass though a few areas are 

covered with thick stands of hardwoods. 

Very Poorly 

Drained 

Anclote Sand This nearly level soil is found in shallow 

deressions and sloughs and along the edges of 

freshwater marshes and swamps. The natural 

vegetation is mixed stands of pondcypress, 

sweetgum and scattered pond pine. The 

understory includes chalky bluestem, blue 

maidencane, sedges and other water tolerant 

grasses. 

Basinger Fine Sand, 

Depressional 

These nearly level soils are found on the flood 

plains of the St. Johns River and its major 

tributaries. The natural vegetation is 

baldcypress, scattered cabbage palm, laurel 

oak, water oak, blackgum, coastal plain willow, 

red maple and sweetgum. The understory 

includes buttonbush, maidencane, sawgrass, 

smartweed, sedges and other water tolerant 

grasses. 

Floridana and Chobee soils, 

Frequently Flooded 

This nearly level sand is found in broad areas 

of flood plains and in small to large marshy 

depressions. The natural vegetation is typically 

sand cordgrass with a few areas covered by 

cypress or hardwoods. 

Floridana Sand These soils are nearly level and found in 

freshwater swamps, depressions, sloughs and 

broad, poorly defined drainageways. The 

natural vegetation is mixed stands of 

pondcypress, red maple, sweetgum, cabbage 

palm, scattered palm pine and black tupelo. 

Samsula-Hontoon-Basinger 

association, depressional 

This nearly level soil is found in freshwater 

swamps and marshes, depressions and in 

poorly defined drainageways. 

Sanibel Muck These soils are located in sloughs, poorly 

defined drainageways and shallow intermittent 

ponds in the flatwoods. The natural vegetation 

is typically marsh grasses, sedges and St. 

Johnswort. Some areas are wooded with water 

tolerant hoardwoods and pond pine. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 32 

Natural 

Drainage 

Characteristics 

Soil Type Environmental Association 

Very Poorly 

Drained 

St. Johns Soils Ponded This nearly level muck soil is located in broad 

flat marsh areas and small depressionas. The 

natural vegetation includes maidecane, 

sawgrass, cattails, flags and scattered dense 

thickets of woody button bush. A few areas are 

wooded with maple, bay, gum and other 

wetland hard woods. 

Terra Ceia Muck This nearly level muck soil is located in broad 

flat marshes, small depressions and swamps. 

The natural vegetation includes maidecane, 

sawgrass, cattails, flags, and scattered dense 

thickets of woody button bush. A few areas are 

wooded with swamp hardwoods consisting of 

maple, gum, bay, and other wetland 

hardwoods. 

Tomoka Muck This soil is comprised of soil material 

excavated from canals and highway 

overpasses and interchanges. The soils are 

found along canals and used for 

embankments. 

Arents This nearly level to gently sloping soil is found 

on uplands. The natural vegetation is scattered 

slash pine, sand pine, longleaf pine, bluejack 

oak, chapman oak, scrub live oak and turkey 

oak. The understory includes Indiangrass, 

chalky bluestem, hairy panicum, pineland 

threeawn and annual forbs 

Obviously, fresh water was an important resource for precontact populations. This variable 

would have been of greater importance during the Paleoindian and Early Archaic stages 

(12,000–5000 BC), when the perched water system was more restricted. Access to fresh 

water during these early periods would have been from sinkholes and aquifer-fed rivers. 

During later periods, the numerous ponds, lakes, and depressional wetlands in the vicinity of 

the project area would have provided abundant sources of fresh water. 

Hardwood hammocks (hydric, mesic, or xeric) provide a variety of resources that would have 

been exploited by the aboriginal inhabitants of this region. Hydric hardwood hammocks can 

contain abundant animal and plant life, particularly a variety of tubers. Mesic hardwood 

hammocks contain cabbage palms and other plants that produce edible portions. Other mesic 

hardwoods, such as ash and elm, are woods that are known to have been used for specific 

purposes, i.e., bows, canoes, mortars, and dart shafts (Newsom and Purdy 1983). Often, areas 

of higher relative elevation correspond with better-drained soils or the presence of hardwood 

hammocks (xeric and mesic). 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 33 

Historic Archaeological Site Location Model 

In Florida, historic period sites frequently co-occur with precontact archaeological sites. This 

is often the result of environmental conditions found desirable by both groups: better-drained 

upland knolls near transportation routes (i.e., historic trails and major rivers). Use of the land 

around the project area during the earliest historic periods (First Spanish, English, and 

Second Spanish) was probably limited; occupations from these periods would have been of 

such short duration that evidence of parties crossing the project vicinity is almost impossible 

to detect archaeologically. Furthermore, no such groups are known or suspected of having 

settled or camped within the project vicinity. 

During the nineteenth century (post-1821), historic settlement tended to follow the isolated 

homestead or farmstead pattern. Individual families or groups of related families often built 

homesteads on the better-drained, hardwood hammocks. There were usually several miles 

between these settlements to allow room for farm fields. 

A review of historic plat maps (FDEP 1845a, 1845b, 1845c, 1845d, 1846, 1848a, 1848b, 

1852a, 1852b, 1859a, 1927) identified no military forts, encampments, battlefields, 

homesteads, or historical Native American villages or trails were located within or adjacent 

to the East-West Corridor. One historic road labeled ‘Old Road’ was identified within 

Section 36 of Township 23 South, Range 33 East. 

Archaeological Site Potential Zones 

Zones of archaeological site potential were designated based on previous research conducted 

within the East and Central cultural region and considered previous surveys conducted within 

the vicinity of the East-West Corridor (Piper Archaeology 1990, Janus Research 2005). 

Background research conducted to establish the predevelopment environmental of the EastWest Corridor consisted of a review of historic plat maps from the mid-1800s (FDEP 1845a, 

1845b, 1845c, 1845d, 1845e, 1846, 1848a, 1848b, 1852a, 1852b, 1859a), historic surveyors’ 

notes from the mid-1800s (FDEP 1843a, 1843b, 1844, 1845f, 1845g, 1847, 1848c, 1859b), 

historic aerials from mid-to-late twentieth century (University of Florida, George A. 

Smathers Libraries 2011), and county soil survey data (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

[USDA] 1974, 1989). 

Generally speaking, high site potential zones are defined as those areas of moderately well 

drained to excessively drained upland locales near a wetland or body of water. These areas of 

high site potential were tested at 25-meter (82-foot) intervals. Generally speaking, moderate 

site potential zones are defined as those poorly to very poorly drained locales near a wetland 

or body of water. Areas of moderate site potential were tested at 50-meter (164-foot) 

intervals. Low site potential zones are defined as those areas of very poorly drained to 

excessively drained upland locales not otherwise designated as high or medium site potential. 

Areas of low site potential were tested judgmentally. Currently, approximately four percent 

of the accessible area designated as low site potential has been tested at 100-meter (328-foot) 

intervals. Additional testing within low site potential zones will be conducted once access to 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 34 

the one private landowner’s property is coordinated. When this testing is combined with the 

testing conducted to date, it is anticipated that approximately 10 percent of the previously 

unsurveyed portion of the corridor designated as low site potential will have been tested at 

100-meter (328-foot) intervals. This additional shovel testing and pedestrian survey will be 

documented within a supplemental addendum report. Site potential zones established for the 

previously unsurveyed portions of the East-West Corridor are illustrated on the aerial 

mapping included in Appendix E. 

Results 

Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological field methods consisted of subsurface testing and pedestrian survey within 

areas of the East-West Corridor not previously subjected to comprehensive cultural resource 

survey. A total of 31 shovel tests were excavated during the current survey within areas of 

high, moderate, and low site potential and no cultural material was identified within any of 

these shovel tests. In addition, no additional environmental features indicative of increased 

archaeological site potential were identified during the pedestrian survey. Soil stratigraphy 

varied throughout the East-West Corridor and in some instances, standing water, fill material, 

or solid hardpan was encountered before reaching 100 cm below surface (cmbs). 

Representative photographs of the East-West Corridor are included in Figures 5–8. 

Figure 5: Xeric Upland Area in High Site Potential Zone within the East-West 

Corridor, facing West from Shovel Test 23 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 35 

Figure 6: Low, Flat, Poorly Drained Area in Moderate Site Potential Zone within the 

East-West Corridor, facing West from Shovel Test 27 

Figure 7: Poorly Drained Area of Low Flatwoods in a Low Site Potential Zone within 

the East-West Corridor, facing West from Shovel Test 37 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 36 

Figure 8: Representative Photograph of Shovel Test (Shovel Test 27) Excavated in 

Poorly Drained Soils within the East-West Corridor 

Once property access is coordinated for the one private landowner’s property, a pedestrian 

survey and appropriate subsurface testing will be conducted and documented in a 

supplemental addendum report. 

Historic Resources 

The historic resources survey resulted in the identification of nine historic resources within 

the East-West Corridor APE. Of the identified historic resources (Table 6), six have been 

previously recorded (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8OR9851, 8BD1870, 8BD2697, and 8OR9850) 

and three are newly recorded (8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 8BR3068). These resources consist 

of five historic buildings (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 8BR3068), one 

historic resource group (8OR9851), and three historic linear resources (8BD1870, 8BD2697, 

and 8OR9850). All of the previously recorded historic resources, with the exception of the 

National Register–eligible FEC Railway (8BR1870), have been determined ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register by the SHPO. The three newly recorded historic buildings 

identified within the project APE are considered ineligible for listing in the National Register

either individually or as part of a district. The buildings located within the APE have simple 

forms and common design types found throughout the state of Florida. In addition, limited 

research revealed no significant associations with important persons or events. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 37 

Table 6 below lists the identified historic resources identified within the East-West Corridor 

APE in ascending FMSF number order. Maps with the locations of each individually 

significant historic resource are included in Appendix E. Photographs of the significant 

historic resource (8BR1870) and the newly recorded resources within East-West Corridor 

APE follow Table 6 in Figures 9–12. The photographs of the three newly recorded historic 

resources are accompanied by brief narratives that also address the significance of these 

resources. A FMSF form for each of the three newly recorded historic resources is included 

in Appendix A. Previously completed FMSF forms for the remaining six historic resources 

are also included in Appendix A. 

Table 6. Historic Resources Identified within the East-West Corridor APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style 

SHPO Evaluation of 

National Register 

Significance 

8BR1735 Altered Image Tattoo / 

2417 N. Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1949 Frame 

Vernacular 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1736 Jumping Flea Market / 

2507 N. Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1940 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1870 FEC Railway c. 1886 Railroad Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR2697 US Highway 1 / Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1927 Roadway Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR3066 5161 Palm Avenue c. 1963 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Considered Ineligible 

8BR3067 3800 Pine Street c. 1965 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Considered Ineligible 

8BR3068 2800 Clearlake Road c. 1963 Industrial 

Vernacular 

Considered Ineligible 

8OR9850 Bull Slough Drainage 

Ditches 

c. 1947 Drainage 

Ditches 

Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 

8OR9851 Gee Bee Resource 

Group 

1940s Mixed District Determined Ineligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 38 

East-West Corridor National Register–Eligible Resource 

Figure 9: Florida East Coast Railroad (8BR1870) near the SR 528 overpass, facing 

Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 39 

East-West Corridor Newly Recorded Historic Resources (Considered National Register–

Ineligible) 

Figure 10: 5161 Palm Avenue (8BR3066), facing Southwest 

8BR3066 5161 Palm Avenue 

This circa 1963 residential structure is located at the south side of Palm Avenue to the west 

of Pine Street in Township 24 South, Range 35 East, Section 9 (Sharpes USGS Quadrangle 

1949 PR 1980), just outside the city limits of Cocoa in Brevard County, Florida (Figure 10). 

It is a rectangular shaped Masonry Vernacular style building with stucco on the façade, and a 

continuous concrete block foundation. Its main entry is on the north side and is covered by a 

small, shed roof extension supported by square, stuccoed, concrete block supports. The gable 

roof is covered with composition shingles. Fenestration consists of metal single-hung-sash 

replacement windows with one-over-one light configurations. Some of the decorative 

detailing featured on this building includes stucco surrounds and stucco banding on the porch 

supports. Non-historic alterations include an updated small entry porch and supports, the 

replacement of the windows and doors, and the restuccoing of the façade. It sits in a 

residential setting and remains in good condition. 

This building exhibits a common design type found throughout Florida and recent 

modifications to the façade have affected its historic integrity. In addition, limited research 

has revealed no significant historical associations. Therefore, it is considered ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register either individually or as part of a historic district. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 40 

Figure 11: 3800 Pine Street (8BR3067), facing Northwest 

8BR3067 3800 Pine Street 

This circa 1965 residential structure is located at the southwest corner of Palm Avenue and 

Pine Street in Township 24 South, Range 35 East, Section 9 (Sharpes USGS Quadrangle 

1949 PR 1980), just outside the city limits of Cocoa in Brevard County, Florida (Figure 11). 

It is a rectangular shaped Masonry Vernacular style building with stucco on the façade, and a 

continuous concrete block foundation. Its main entry is on the east side at the porch and 

features a screen door in front of the main door. The gable roof entry porch is partially 

enclosed with lattice. The gable roof is covered with composition shingles. Fenestration 

consists of metal single-hung-sash windows with one-over-one light configurations. Some of 

the decorative detailing featured on this building includes faux shutters and the 

aforementioned lattice at the front porch. Non-historic alterations include the replacement of 

the windows and doors, porch supports, and faux shutters. It sits in a residential setting and 

remains in good condition. 

This building exhibits a common design type found throughout Florida, and limited research 

has revealed no significant historical associations. Therefore, it is considered ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register either individually or as part of a historic district. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 41 

Figure 12: 2800 Clearlake Road (8BR3068), facing West 

8BR3068 2800 Clearlake Road 

This circa 1963 industrial structure is located at the southwest corner of Clearlake Road and 

the FEC Railway tracks in Township 24 South, Range 36 East, Section 17 (Sharpes USGS 

Quadrangle 1949 PR 1980), in the city of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida (Figure 12). It is a 

rectangular shaped Industrial Vernacular building with a metal façade over a wood frame 

structural system. It rests on a continuous concrete block foundation, which extends out from 

the building to the south, creating a large loading dock. Its main entry is on the north side, 

although there appear to be openings of some type on all four sides of the building. The gable 

roof entry porch is partially enclosed with lattice. The gable roof is covered with 5V sheet 

metal and the no windows appear on anywhere on the building. The only notable decoration 

on the building is the signage. With the exception of the added signage, the building appears 

to retain its original form and appearance with little alteration. It sits in an 

industrial/commercial setting and remains in fair condition. 

This building exhibits a common design type found throughout Florida, and limited research 

has revealed no significant historical associations. Therefore, it is considered ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register either individually or as part of a historic district. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 42 

NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR FROM COCOA TO WEST PALM BEACH 

Project Location 

The North-South Corridor between Cocoa and West Palm Beach is located within portions of 

Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties on the Ankona (1948, PR 

1983), Cocoa (1976, PR 1984), Courtenay (1976), Eau Gallie (1949, PR 1980), Eden (1948, 

PR 1983), Fellsmere (1949, PR 1970), Fort Pierce (1949, PR 1983), Gomez (1948, PR 1943), 

Grant (1949, PR 1970), Hobe Sound (1948, PR 1983), Indrio (1948, PR 1983), Jupiter (1948, 

PR 1983), Melbourne East (1949, PR 1980), Melbourne West (1949, PR 1970), Oslo (1949, 

PR 1983), Palm Beach (1946, PR 1983), Palm City (1948, PR 1970), Riviera Beach (1946, 

PR 1983), Sebastian (1949, PR 1970), Sharpes (1949, PR 1980), St. Lucie Inlet (1948, PR 

1983), and Vero Beach (1949, PR 1983) USGS quadrangle maps in the following 

Townships, Ranges, and Sections: 

 Township 23 South, Range 35 East, Sections 24, 25, and 36; 

 Township 23 South, Range 36 East, Section 31; 

 Township 24 South, Range 36 East, Sections 6, 7, 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, and 33; 

 Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Sections 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 23, 35, and 36; 

 Township 26 South, Range 36 East, Sections 1, 12, and 13; 

 Township 26 South, Range 37 East, Sections 18, 19, an 30–32; 

 Township 27 South, Range 37 East, Sections 5, 8, 9, 16, 21, 27, 28, and 34; 

 Township 28 South, Range 37 East, Sections 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 24, and 25; 

 Township 28 South, Range 38 East, Sections 30 and 31; 

 Township 29 South, Range 38 East, Sections 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 28, 33, and 34; 

 Township 30 South, Range 38 East, Sections 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, 23, and Fleming 

Grant; 

 Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Sections 6–8, 17, 20, 28, 29, and 33; 

 Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Sections 3, 4, 10, 15, 22, 23, 26, and 35; 

 Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Sections 1, 2, 12, 13, and 24; 

 Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Sections 19, 30, and 31; 

 Township 34 South, Range 40 East, Sections 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 33, and 34; 

 Township 35 South, Range 40 East, Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 23, 26, 35, and 36; 

 Township 36 South, Range 40 East, Sections 1 and 12; 

 Township 36 South, Range 41 East, Sections 7, 18, 19, 29, 30, and 32; 

 Township 37 South, Range 41 East, Sections 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 33; 

 Township 38 South, Range 41 East, Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, 25, 37, and 43, 

and Hanson Grant; 

 Township 38 South, Range 42 East, Sections 29, 30, and 32; 

 Township 39 South, Range 42 East, Sections 26, 27, and 35; 

 Township 40 South, Range 42 East, Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36; 

 Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Sections 30 and 31; 

 Township 41 South, Range 42 East, Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36; 

 Township 42 South, Range 42 East, Section 1; 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 43 

 Township 42 South, Range 43 East, Sections 6, 7, 17, 18, 20, 28, 29, and 33; and 

 Township 43 South, Range 43 East, Sections 4, 9, and 16. 

The location of the North-South Corridor is illustrated on the USGS Quadrangle maps 

accompanying the Survey Log in Appendix G. 

Precontact and Historic Overview 

A summary of the pre-contact and historic context of the project corridor, describing the 

important events, locations, resources, and individuals associated with the project APE was 

prepared and included in the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I: A Cultural 

Resource Assessment Survey of the FEC Mainline in Brevard, Duval, Flagler, Indian River, 

Martin, Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia Counties, Florida (PCI and Janus 

Research 2010). The SHPO concurred with the findings of the CRAS and found this report 

and all sections to be complete and sufficient. This information has been excerpted from the 

2010 report and is included for reference in Appendix H. 

Florida Master Site File Search and Literature Review 

A comprehensive search of the FMSF and literature review was performed to determine the 

locations of all previously recorded archaeological resources within the archaeological APE, 

and previously recorded National Register–listed or eligible, historic resources located within 

the historic resources APE3

. In addition, the aforementioned 2010 CRAS and local 

information provided by the major municipalities located in the APE were reviewed to 

determine the potential for unrecorded and locally listed resources that may be eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. 

Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys 

An extensive search of pertinent literature and records of the surrounding region as well as 

any archaeological and historical assessments of other tracts of land within or adjacent to the 

North-South Corridor was conducted to determine the locations of any previously recorded 

archaeological and historic resources. This background research identified 128 previously 

conducted cultural resource surveys that have been performed within or adjacent to the 

North-South Corridor. A detailed list of these previously conducted surveys is provided by 

FMSF Survey No. in Appendix J. 

 

3 The search of the FMSF data included the most current information provided by the FMSF on a quarterly basis as well as Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) data maintained by the FMSF. This information is based on the most current FMSF data, which is not a 

comprehensive inventory of cultural resources and their significance and may not reflect existing conditions. It is important to remember 

that the FMSF serves as an archive and repository of information about Florida’s recorded cultural resources. It represents an inventory of 

resources for which available information exists and describes their condition at a particular point of time. Because the inventory of 

resources is not all-inclusive on a statewide basis, gaps in data may exist. It can be used as guide but should not be used to determine the 

FDHR/SHPO official position about the significance of a resource. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 44 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources 

A review of past research, and an updated search of the FMSF and local data, identified five 

archaeological sites within the archaeological APE for the North-South Corridor. This 

includes one previously recorded site in Indian River County, one previously recorded site in 

Martin County, and three previously recorded sites in St. Lucie County. All of these sites 

have suffered some level of previous disturbances. These sites are listed in Table 7 and their 

locations are illustrated on the aerial mapping included in Appendix F. 

Only one of these sites, 8SL1136, has been formally evaluated by the SHPO. The SHPO 

determined that this site was ineligible for listing in the National Register. Two of these 

previously recorded sites, 8MT1287 and 8SL41, were evaluated by the initial site file 

recorder as potentially National Register–eligible. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge #3 

(8MT1287) consists of a thin scatter of shell and a few aboriginal ceramic potsherd 

fragments

Fort Capron (8SL41) consists of the archaeological remains 

of a 1850s military fort. Today, the only visible remnants of the fort are 

Table 7. Archaeological Sites Located within the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line 

ROW 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Site Type National Register 

Significance* 

Indian River County 

8IR846 Railroad Malabar-Period Shell Midden and 

Artifact Scatter 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

Martin County

8MT1287 Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuge #3 

Prehistoric Campsite and 

Prehistoric Shell Midden 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

St. Lucie County

8SL41 Ft. Capron Historic Fort Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

8SL1136 Pineapple Surface Scatter, Campsite, 

Homestead, and Farmstead 

Ineligible 

8SL1772 Avenue A-Downtown 

Fort Pierce 

Precolumbian Habitation, Midden, 

Campsite, and extractive Site; 

Historic American Building 

Remains, Refuse, and Artifact 

Scatter 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

* As recorded in the FMSF; may require re-evaluation 

Note: The exact locations of archaeological sites are sensitive and have been omitted from this public version of the 

document. As noted in Chapter 267.135, Florida Statutes, “Any information identifying the location of an archaeological 

site held by the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a) of 

Art. I of the State Constitution, if the Division of Historical Resources finds that disclosure of such information will create

a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction at such site.” More detailed location information is on file with the FMSF 

and access is limited to researchers and the Native American Tribes. For more information, please contact the FRA. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 45 

Two segments of the Palm Beach County segment of the North-South Corridor 

(approximately 0.9 miles in total) are located within the Coastal Zone archaeological zone 

and one segment (approximately 1.3 miles) is located within the Loxahatchee River 

archaeological zone. These zones are described in the Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach 

County: A Preliminary Predictive Study (Kennedy et al. 1991). The location of these zones 

relative to the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line is included in Appendix F. 

An additional 10 archaeological sites are located adjacent to, but outside of, the North-South 

Corridor APE for archaeological resources. While none of the 10 sites have been previously 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register by the SHPO, two of these sites (8IR1 

and 8IR9) are listed in the FMSF as having potential or confirmed human remains. All 10 

archaeological sites are listed in Table 8. 

Table 8: Archaeological Sites Located Adjacent to but Outside of the North-South Corridor 

APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Site Type National Register 

Significance* 

Brevard County 

8BR2670 Jernigan Avenue 

Historic Scatter 

Historic Refuse and Building 

Remains 

Ineligible 

Indian River County

8IR1 Vero Man Redeposited Precolumbian Burial Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

8IR9 Vero Locality Multicomponent Artifact Scatter 

with Potential or Confirmed 

Human Remains 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

Martin County 

8MT1619 Olympia South Glade-Period Campsite, 

Habitation, and Artifact Scatter 

with Subsurface Features 

Ineligible 

St. Lucie County

8SL8 Unnamed Site Precolumbian Midden Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

8SL292 Walton Railroad 1 Precolumbian Habitation and 

Historic Artifact Scatter 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

8SL1174 M-8 Historic Scatter Historic Refuse and Subsurface 

Features 

Ineligible 

8SL1175 M-8 Historic Scatter 3 Historic Refuse and Subsurface 

Features 

Ineligible 

8SL3016 Eden Outbuildings and 

Tennis Courts 

Historic Building Materials Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

8SL3063 Savannahs North Dune Habitation, Midden, Refuse, 

Extractive Site with Precolumbian 

and Historic Components 

Not Evaluated by 

SHPO 

* As recorded in the FMSF; may require re-evaluation 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 46 

Previously Recorded Historic Resources 

An FMSF background search was conducted to identify previously recorded historic 

resources located within the North-South Corridor APE that have been listed in the National 

Register, evaluated by the SHPO as National Register–eligible or considered eligible based 

on the previous surveyor’s evaluation. 

Previously Recorded Significant and Potentially Significant Historic Resources within the 

North-South Corridor Direct APE (FEC Railway ROW) 

Three previously recorded historic cultural resources were identified within the North-South 

Corridor Direct APE, which is considered the FEC Railway ROW, including the FEC 

Railway (8BR1870/8IR1497/8IR1518/8SL3014/8MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102), a historic 

FEC Railway Bridge (8MT1382), and the remains of a concrete fence/former loading 

platform (8IR1049). The FEC Railway 8BR1870/8IR1497/8IR1518/8SL3014/8MT1391/ 

8MT1450/ 8PB12102) has been previously determined to be eligible by SHPO for listing in 

the National Register. The previously recorded historic railway bridge, FEC Railway Bridge 

(8MT1382), has been previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register by 

the SHPO. The FEC Railway Platform Remains (8IR1049) are located on the boundary of 

the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW and consist of concrete posts that 

formerly supported a loading platform. The previous surveyor suggested that this resource 

lacks integrity and was therefore not eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Previously Recorded Significant and Potentially Significant Historic Resources within the 

North-South Corridor Indirect APE (Adjacent to the FEC Railway ROW) 

A total of 55 significant historic resources were identified within the North-South Corridor 

APE that covered the resources adjacent to the FEC Railway ROW for up to 150 feet. These 

include 11 resources in Brevard County, 10 resources in Indian River County, 19 resources in 

St. Lucie County, 11 resources in Martin County, and four resources in Palm Beach County. 

Within the Brevard County portion, one historic district determined National Register–

eligible by the SHPO was identified. In addition, two historic cemeteries that have been 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register by the SHPO were identified. One 

historic railway station determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO and eight 

significant historic buildings are located within the Brevard County portion; three are 

National Register–listed and five are determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO. 

Within the Indian River County portion, one National Register–listed historic resource group, 

one historic linear resource determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO, and one 

historic bridge determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO were identified. One 

National Register–listed historic railway station and six additional significant historic 

buildings are located within the Indian River County portion; two National Register–listed 

buildings, one building determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO, one building 

considered National Register–eligible by the previous recorder, and two buildings that 

formerly had insufficient information for the SHPO to make an determination of eligibility. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 47 

Within the St. Lucie County portion, one historic district considered National Register–

eligible based on the evaluation of the surveyor was identified. In addition, 18 historic 

significant buildings were identified; two are National Register–listed, 12 are determined 

National Register–eligible by the SHPO, two are considered National Register–eligible by 

the previous recorder, one building was not evaluated by the SHPO and had insufficient 

information for the previous recorder to make a determination of eligibility, and one building 

was determined by the SHPO to have insufficient information to make an determination of 

eligibility. 

Within the Martin County portion, one historic resource group with insufficient information 

for the SHPO to make a determination of eligibility was identified. In addition, one historic 

linear resource determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO was identified. Eight 

significant historic buildings are also located within the Martin County portion; one is 

National Register–listed, four are determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO, and 

three are considered National Register–eligible based on the evaluation of the previous 

recorder. One additional historic resource group that has not been evaluated by the SHPO 

was identified and there are no contributing resources to this resource group within 150 feet 

of the APE. No potentially contributing resources to this resource group that are considered 

to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register are located within 1000 feet of 

the APE. 

Within the Palm Beach County portion, one historic district, historic cemetery, and one 

historic building were considered National Register–eligible based on the evaluation of the 

previous recorder. One historic linear resource that formerly had insufficient information for 

the SHPO to make a determination of eligibility was also identified within the Palm Beach 

County segment of the of the reconnaissance area. 

This results section includes tables organized by county, which list the significant resources 

identified adjacent to the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line (Tables 9–26). The 

resources are listed in ascending FMSF number order. 

Table 9. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8BR2173 Union Cypress Saw Mill 

Historic District 

Mixed District Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 48 

Table 10. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

Cemeteries Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

8BR1724 Hilltop Cemetery c. 1887 Determined National Register–

Eligible by the SHPO 

8BR1777 Cocoa Cemetery c. 1890 Determined National Register–

Eligible by the SHPO 

Table 11. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Former 

Historic Railway Station Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR2779 Former Florida East 

Coast Railway Train 

Station / 317 Rosa 

Jones Drive 

c. 1962 International Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 12. Brevard County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR215 Florida Power & Light 

Company Ice Plant / 

1604 South Harbor 

City Boulevard 

1926 Industrial Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8BR759 Whaley, Marion S. 

Citrus Packing House 

/ 2275 Rockledge 

Boulevard West 

1930 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8BR1163 Lamar, Mattie House / 

361 Stone Street 

c. 1917 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1710 Jorgensen's General 

Store / 5390 US 

Highway 1 

1894 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8BR1723 Cocoa Cemetery 

Storage Building / 101 

North Cocoa 

Boulevard 

c. 1931 Masonry Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1739 Ashley's Cafe & 

Lounge / 1609 

Rockledge Boulevard 

West 

c. 1932 Tudor Revival Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 49 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR1741 Rockledge Gardens 

Nursery and 

Landscaping / 2153 

Rockledge Boulevard 

West 

c. 1930 Industrial Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8BR1765 Bohn Equipment 

Company / 255 Olive 

Street 

c. 1927 Industrial Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 13. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Resource Group Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8IR859 McKee Jungle Gardens FMSF Building 

Complex 

National Register–Listed 

Table 14. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8IR1519 Dixie Highway Linear Resource Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 15. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Bridge Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8IR1516 FDOT Bridge No. 880001 Historic Bridge Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 16. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Railway Station Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8IR68 Vero Railroad Station / 

2336 14th Avenue 

1903 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 50 

Table 17. Indian River County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8IR99 George Armstrong 

Braddock House / 

1309 Louisiana 

Avenue 

1908 Georgian Revival Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

8IR624 Old Vero Beach 

Community Building / 

2146 14th Avenue 

1935 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8IR858 Hall Of Giants, McKee 

Jungle Gardens / US 1 

and 4th Street 

1940 Other Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8IR975 Vero Beach Diesel 

Power Plant / 1133 

19th Place 

1926 Masonry Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8IR1464 Vero Beach 

Community Center / 

2266 14th Avenue 

1966 Moderne Insufficient 

Information for 

SHPO 

Determination 

8IR1475 1146 21st Street 1966 Moderne Insufficient 

Information for 

SHPO 

Determination 

Table 18. St. Lucie County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8SL2801 Edgar Town Historic 

District 

Historic District Considered National 

Register–Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

Table 19. St. Lucie County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8SL78 Fairmont Manor / 5707 

South Indian River 

Drive 

1896 Neo-Classical Revival Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 51 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8SL236 Riverhill / 4625 South 

Indian River Drive 

1903 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL237 Britt House / 4511 

South Indian River 

Drive 

1908 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL238 Card, N.E. House / 

3915–3917 Indian 

River Drive 

1914 Masonry Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL289 Old Fort Pierce City 

Hall / 315 “A” Avenue 

c. 1925 Italianate National Register–

Listed 

8SL799 Sunrise Theater / 117 

2nd Street South 

c. 1923 Mediterranean 

Revival 

National Register–

Listed 

8SL825 601 South 2nd Street c. 1935 Masonry Vernacular Insufficient 

Information for 

SHPO 

Determination 

8SL826 Tyler, Frank House / 

519 2nd Street South 

c. 1924 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL917 Banyon Belle Manor / 

1001 South Indian 

River Drive 

1905 Georgian Revival Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL918 1009 South Indian 

River Drive 

1925 Mission Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL920 1029 South Indian 

River Drive 

1920 Georgian Revival Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

8SL926 Peacock, O.L. House / 

2211 South Indian 

River Drive 

1920 Mediterranean 

Revival 

No SHPO 

Evaluation; 

Insufficient 

Information for 

Previous Recorder 

Determination 

8SL930 Lesher, Stephen 

House / 2501 South 

Indian River Drive 

1920 Italian Renaissance 

Revival 

Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 52 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8SL931 Carlton-Vest House / 

2507 South Indian 

River Drive 

1920 Masonry Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL932 Casa Del Rio / 2513 

South Indian River 

Drive 

1920 Italian Renaissance 

Revival 

Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL933 Phelps, Babe House / 

2521 South Indian 

River Drive 

1935 Monterey Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL1599 Shadetree Studio / 

2900 Old Dixie 

Highway 

1950 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8SL1922 East Coast Packers / 

2130 Old Dixie 

Highway 

1950 Industrial Vernacular Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

Table 20. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Resource 

Group Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8MT1573 Witham Field Airport Mixed District Insufficient Information 

for SHPO Determination 

8MT1577 Camp Murphy Mixed District Not Evaluated* 

* Within the 150 foot buffer there are no contributing resources to this mixed district/resource group. 

However, there is the potential for contributing resources outside of the 150 foot indirect APE. 

Table 21. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8MT1621 Dixie Highway Linear Resource Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 53 

Table 22. Martin County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Historic 

Buildings Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8MT46 George W. Parks 

Store / Stuart Feed / 

101 South Flagler 

Avenue 

1901 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT84 Fern Building / 73 

West Flagler Avenue 

c. 1950 Masonry Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT86 Lyric Theatre / 59 

Southwest Flagler 

Avenue 

c. 1926 Mediterranean 

Revival 

National Register–

Listed 

8MT130 East Coast Lumber 

and Supply / 49 

Southwest Flagler 

Avenue 

1917 Frame Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT131 Hobe Sound Cabinetry 

/ 500 South Dixie 

Highway 

1917-c. 

1926 

Masonry Vernacular Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT307 Crary House / 161 

Southwest Flagler 

Avenue 

1925 Tudor Revival Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

8MT838 12200 Southeast 

Nassau Street 

c. 1941 Frame Vernacular Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

8MT1066 250 North Flagler 

Road 

c. 1940 Masonry Vernacular Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

Table 23. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic District Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8PB13340 Kelsey City Layout Historic District Considered National 

Register–Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 54 

Table 24. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8PB13330* Old Dixie Highway Linear Resource Insufficient Information 

for SHPO Determination 

* Based on the review of the FMSF forms and the results of the current field survey, this resource is 

not considered to be eligible for listing in the National Register due to a lack of historic integrity 

Table 25. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Cemetery Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

8PB218 Evergreen Cemetery 1916 Considered National 

Register–Eligible by Previous 

Recorder 

Table 26. Palm Beach County Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant 

Historic Building Identified Within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8PB6064 St. John’s Baptist 

Church / 2010 A. E. 

Isaacs Avenue 

1929 Mission Considered 

National Register–

Eligible by 

Previous Recorder 

Demolished Historic Resources Formerly Located Within the North-South Corridor 

Indirect APE 

Background research and the current field survey identified five previously recorded 

significant and potentially significant historic resources that are no longer extant, which were 

previously located adjacent to the North-South Corridor. These demolished resources (Table 

27) include two historic buildings in Brevard County, a historic district and linear resource in 

Martin County, and one historic building in Palm Beach County. 

Table 27. Previously Recorded Significant or Potentially Significant Cultural Resources that 

have been Demolished 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type 

8BR1189 Christ is the Answer / 2302–2304 South 

Harbor City Boulevard 

Historic Building 

8BR1190 2306 South Harbor City Boulevard Historic Building 

8MT1477 Camp Murphy Bank Building Historic Building 

8MT1481 Camp Murphy Railroad Spur Linear Resource 

8MT1513 Indian River Drive/Church Street District Historic District 

8PB8145 Adam’s Property / 2409 Pinewood Avenue Historic Building 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 55 

Background Research and Field Methods 

During the March 28, 2013 SHPO meeting and the conference call on July 8, 2013 with FRA 

and others, SHPO agreed that the same approach to identifying and recording cultural 

resources that was used for the Miami to West Palm Beach EA/FONSI should be used for the 

North-South Corridor. Archival and reconnaissance level survey work was conducted for the 

North-South Corridor. 

Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological analysis consisted of a desktop analysis which included an archaeological 

literature and background information search to identify the types, cultural affiliation and 

location of known archaeological sites within the respective study areas. This includes a 

search of the FMSF, county and local site inventories, unpublished CRM reports, and other 

relevant historical research materials. 

This desktop analysis reviewed the locations of archaeological sites to determine whether the 

archaeological resources identified during the 2010 CRAS are located within or adjacent to 

the current FEC Railway ROW. An updated search of FMSF data was also conducted to 

identify any archaeological resources that have been recorded or determined locally 

significant since the previous surveys were completed. This search focused on identifying 

National Register–listed or eligible archaeological resources. Subsurface archaeological 

testing was not feasible within the FEC Railway Corridor ROW for reasons of safety. 

The locations of all known FMSF and locally significant archaeological sites, as well as 

locally designated or significant archaeological zones within the archaeological APE were 

marked on aerial maps and included in Appendix F. 

Historic Resources 

Resources within the North-South Corridor Direct APE (FEC Railway ROW) 

Resources located directly within the ROW, such as historic bridges, were recorded on 

FMSF forms (Appendix C). As discussed previously, resources which cross the railway were 

not included within the APE, as there is no potential for effects based on the nature of the 

proposed improvements and the resources. 

Historic resources fieldwork to identify resources within the FEC Railway ROW was 

conducted in May of 2013. An architectural historian and one technical assistant conducted a 

historic resources survey in order to ensure that resources built during or before 1965 within 

the ROW were identified, properly mapped, and photographed. During the survey the 

entirety of the FEC Railway Corridor ROW was not accessible, and specific targeted sites 

where known historic resources are located were evaluated. These primarily included the 

sites of the historic railway bridge crossings. Representative photographs of the types of 

structures (such as switch boxes and signage) within the ROW were also taken. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 56 

The historic resources survey used standard field methods to identify and record historic 

resources. Resources with features indicative of 1965 or earlier construction materials, 

building methods, or architectural styles were noted on aerial photographs. For each resource 

identified within the ROW during the preliminary assessment, FMSF forms were filled out 

with field data, including notes from site observations and research findings. The estimated 

dates of construction, distinctive features, and architectural style or engineering design were 

noted. Photographs were taken with a high resolution digital camera. A log was kept to 

record the resource’s physical location and compass direction of each photograph. 

FEC Railway bridge data including dates of construction and bridge design types was 

provided by the FEC Railway. The project architectural historian identified any resource not 

accounted for by this information in the field based on the aforementioned methods. All 

historic resources identified within the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW were marked 

on aerial maps, which are included in Appendix F. 

Each resource’s significance was then evaluated for its potential eligibility for listing in the 

National Register. Historic physical integrity was determined from site observations, field 

data, and photographic documentation. 

Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE (Adjacent to the FEC Railway 

ROW) 

Significant historic resources located on parcels immediately adjacent to the FEC Railway 

Corridor ROW were identified through background research and a reconnaissance survey. 

This reconnaissance work was conducted in an area that extended a minimum distance of 150 

feet from the existing railway ROW. This included both the parcels located adjacent to the 

ROW that extended more than 150 feet out from the existing ROW as well as all of the 

smaller parcels that are located within 150 feet of the existing ROW. At the rail crossings, 

background research and reconnaissance survey work focused on identifying any known 

National Register–listed or eligible historic districts located directly adjacent to the crossings. 

Historic resources reconnaissance fieldwork was conducted in May of 2013 by an 

architectural historian and one technical assistant. This reconnaissance survey identified all 

potentially significant historic resources located on parcels adjacent to the FEC Railway 

Corridor ROW and all significant historic districts located adjacent to the at-grade crossings. 

Significant or potentially significant historic resources were photographed with a highresolution digital camera and noted on aerial maps (Appendix F). A log was kept to record 

the resource’s physical location and compass direction of each photograph. Concentrations of 

historic resources within the indirect APE were noted in terms of their potential for inclusion 

within current or potential historic districts. According to the SHPO/FRA accepted methods, 

FMSF forms were not prepared for the resources located adjacent to the FEC Railway ROW. 

However, FMSF forms for the previously recorded significant resources found within the 

APE are located in Appendix B. The significance of the identified historic resources was then 

preliminarily evaluated for potential eligibility for listing in the National Register, according to 

the National Register Criteria. Historic physical integrity was preliminarily determined from site 

observations, field data, and photographic documentation. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 57 

Results 

Archaeological Resources 

The archaeological APE for the North-South Corridor is included entirely within the APE 

established for the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I: A Cultural Resource 

Assessment Survey of the FEC Mainline in Brevard, Duval, Flagler, Indian River, Martin, 

Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia Counties, Florida (PCI and Janus Research 

2010). 

Five previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological APE 

for the North-South Corridor. One archaeological site (8IR846) was identified within the 

Indian River County segment of the APE, one site (8MT1287) was identified within the 

Martin County segment of the APE, and three previously recorded sites (8SL41, 8SL1136, 

and 8SL1772) were identified within the St. Lucie County segment of the APE. While none 

of these five previously recorded archaeological sites are National Register–listed, and none 

have been previously determined by the SHPO to be National Register–eligible, 8MT1287 

and 8SL41 were evaluated by the initial site file recorder as potentially National Register–

eligible. No previously recorded archeological sites were identified within the Brevard or 

Palm Beach county segments of the North-South Corridor APE. 

Railroad (8IR846) is a Malabar shell midden and variable-density artifact scatter that has not 

been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility by the SHPO. The initial site file 

recorder describes the site as highly disturbed and suggests that the site is ineligible for 

listing in the National Register (Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 1992:190). 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge #3 (8MT1287) is a thin scatter of shell and a few 

aboriginal ceramic potsherd fragments 

The initial site file recorder 

suggests that while the site was likely disturbed by this construction, it is still potentially 

National Register–eligible (Carr et al. 1998:80). 

Preliminary project engineering specified a curve 

modification at this location and this action would have caused disturbance of potentially 

intact portions of the archaeological site. As an avoidance and protection measure, this curve 

modification was eliminated and instead construction in this area will consist of installing rail 

tracks in their historic locations. No subsurface excavation will be required. Preliminary 

discussions with SHPO indicated that this design change would avoid impacting this site. 

Note: The exact locations of archaeological sites are sensitive and have been omitted from this public version of the 

document. As noted in Chapter 267.135, Florida Statutes, “Any information identifying the location of an archaeological 

site held by the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a) of 

Art. I of the State Constitution, if the Division of Historical Resources finds that disclosure of such information will create

a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction at such site.” More detailed location information is on file with the FMSF 

and access is limited to researchers and the Native American Tribes. For more information, please contact the FRA. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 58 

Ft. Capron (8SL41) consists of the archaeological remains of a 1850s military fort. The only 

current visible remnants of the fort 

 The initial site file recorder suggests that while development in the area has 

contributed to the disturbance of portions of the site, that the site is still potentially National 

Register–eligible (Carr and Pepe 2000:90–91).

Construction in this area will consist of installing rail tracks in their historic locations. No 

subsurface excavation will be required and no additional ROW will be needed. Therefore, 

there should be no adverse effects to the archaeological site caused by the proposed Project. 

Pineapple (8SL1136) is a historic American habitation site and variable-density artifact 

scatter that the initial surveyor has described as substantially disturbed (Keith et al. 1997). 

The SHPO previously determined this site to be ineligible for listing in the National Register 

in 1997. 

Avenue A-Downtown Fort Pierce (8SL1772) is listed in the FMSF as a habitation site, 

campsite, extractive site, midden, refuse, surface scatter, building remains, town site, and 

subsurface features with historic East Okeechobee and historic American components. While 

the SHPO has not previously evaluated the National Register eligibility of this site, the initial 

site file recorder describes the site as a refuse and an artifact scatter identified during the 

renovation of Avenue A and suggests there is insufficient information to determine the 

National Register eligibility of this site (Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 2005). 

Approximately 2.2 miles of the North-South Corridor archaeological APE within Palm 

Beach County are located within the Coastal Zone and Loxahatchee River archaeological 

zones described in the Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County: A Preliminary 

Predictive Study (Kennedy et al. 1991). Sites within these zones are generally predicted to be 

located in areas close to the coast, and in hammocks near riverine and estuarine environments 

(Kennedy et al. 1991:75, 91). 

Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Direct APE (FEC Railway ROW) 

The FEC Railway (8BR1870/8IR1497/8IR1518/8SL3014/8MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102) 

has been previously determined by the SHPO to be eligible for listing in the National 

Register. Due to the recent recordation of the FEC Railway and the subsequent determination 

of eligibility by the SHPO, updated FMSF forms were not completed for this resource. 

The most recent previously completed FMSF forms for the FEC Railway were excerpted 

from the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project (PCI and Janus Research 2010) and the AAF 

Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami (Janus Research 2012) and are 

included in Appendix B. The SHPO concurred with the findings of these surveys and found 

the reports and all sections to be complete and sufficient. Representative photographs of this 

resource are included in Figures 13–17. 

Detailed analysis of the other types of resources identified within the FEC Railway ROW 

follows these figures and is organized by resource type. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 59 

Figure 13: FEC Railway (8BR1870), from Broadway Boulevard in Brevard County, 

facing North 

Figure 14: FEC Railway (8IR1497/8IR1518), from Highland Drive SE in Indian River 

County, facing South 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 60 

Figure 15: FEC Railway (8SL3014), from Savannah Road in St. Lucie County, facing 

North 

Figure 16: FEC Railway (8MT1391/8MT1450) from SW St. Lucie Avenue in Martin 

County, facing Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 61 

Figure 17: FEC Railway (8PB12102) from L. A. Kirksey Street in Palm Beach County, 

facing Northwest 

Historic Railway Bridges 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Railway ROW is consistent with the methods 

developed with the SHPO/FDHR for the 2010 FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail project and the 

2012 CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami. Thirteen 

historic railway bridges were identified within the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW 

(Table 28). The majority of the bridges identified during this study are fixed structures that 

do not span great distances. However, with the exception of 8SL3192, which is noncontributing, each identified bridge is considered a contributing element to the overall 

National Register–eligible FEC Railway, and four of these bridges 8BR3058, 

8BR3062/8IR1569, 8MT1382, and 8PB16041 are also considered individually eligible for 

listing in the National Register. Photographs of each identified historic railway bridge are 

included in Figures 18–30, and their locations are illustrated on the maps in Appendix F. 

FMSF forms were completed for each bridge, and are included in Appendix C. 

 
Janus Research Table 28. Historic Railway Bridges Identified within the North-South Corridor Direct APE (FEC Railway ROW) 

Mile 

Post County Site Name / Address Description Construction Material Const. Date FM

Num

190.47 Brevard Fixed Railway Bridge over the Eau Gallie River Viaduct Steel 1925 8BR3194.34 Brevard Fixed Railway Bridge over the Crane Creek and 

Melbourne Street 

Viaduct Steel 1925 8BR3

197.7 Brevard Fixed Railway Bridge over the Turkey Creek Deck Plate Girder Steel 1925 8BR3202.59 Brevard Fixed Railway Bridge over the Goat Creek Trestle Steel 1959 8BR3212.07 Brevard and 

Indian River 

Fixed Railway Bridge over the Sebastian River Deck Plate Girder on Towers Steel 1926 8BR3

8IR15

240.1 St. Lucie Fixed Railway Bridge over the Taylor Creek Concrete Trestle & Beam 

Span 

Concrete with Steel Beam Span 

1961 8SL3

241.22 St. Lucie Fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue Concrete Double Box Beam Concrete 1912/ 

2003* 

8SL3

259.95 Martin Fixed Railway Bridge over the Rio Waterway Trestle Steel and Timber Piles 1958 8MT1260.93 Martin Movable Railway Bridge over the St. Lucie River Beam Span and Through 

Plate Girder, Trunnion Lift 

Steel 1938 8MT1

266.86 Martin Fixed Railway Bridge over the Salerno Waterway Trestle Steel and Timber Piles 1958 8MT1267.34 Martin Fixed Railway Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee 

Creek 1 

Trestle Steel and Timber Piles 1962 8MT1

267.70 Martin Fixed Railway Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee 

Creek 2 

Trestle Steel and Timber Piles 1962 8MT1

282.58 Palm Beach Movable Railway Bridge over the Loxahatchee 

River 

Deck Plate Girder, Through Plate Girder and Trunnion Lift 

Steel 1935 8PB1

* While the substructure was constructed in 1912, the superstructure was reconstructed in 2003
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 63 

Figure 18: Fixed Railway Bridge over the Eau Gallie River (8BR3058), facing 

Southwest 

Figure 19: Fixed Railway Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Street (8BR3059), 

facing South 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 64 

Figure 20: Fixed Railway Bridge over Turkey Creek (8BR3060), facing Southeast 

Figure 21: Fixed Railway Bridge over Goat Creek (8BR3061), facing Northeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 65 

Figure 22: Fixed Railway Bridge over the Sebastian River (8BR3062/8IR1569), facing 

Southwest 

Figure 23: Fixed Bridge over the Taylor Creek (8SL3191), facing Northeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 66 

Figure 24: Fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue (8SL3192), facing east 

Figure 25: Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway (8MT1623), facing North 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 67 

Figure 26: Movable Bridge over the St. Lucie River (8MT1382), facing North 

Figure 27: Fixed Bridge over the Salerno Waterway (8MT1624), facing South 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 68 

Figure 28: Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 (8MT1625), facing 

Northwest 

Figure 29: Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 (8MT1626), facing 

Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 69 

Figure 30: Movable Bridge over the Loxahatchee River (8PB16041), facing Northeast 

Other Railway Resources within the ROW 

As previously noted, the entirety of the FEC Railway Corridor ROW was not surveyed, but 

types of resources within the ROW other than the railway bridges were noted throughout the 

corridor. No buildings associated with the FEC Railway have been identified directly within 

the FEC Railway Corridor ROW. 

Limited records are available regarding the construction dates of the resources other than 

buildings and bridges within the ROW. Survey work identified signage and electrical 

equipment/switch boxes within the ROW. Concrete milepost markers are located throughout 

the ROW (Figure 31). Robert Stevens of the FEC Railway noted that the concrete milepost 

markers were manufactured after 1982, and are non-historic (Stevens 2012a). 

In most recent years they have been replaced by reflective signs on metal posts (Stevens 

2012b). Concrete railroad ties are also installed perpendicular to the ground and sometimes 

contain signage within the ROW (Figure 32). The FEC started manufacturing concrete ties in 

1968, and installation began in Jacksonville and proceeded south with most ties installed by 

1984 (Stevens 2012b). Thus, the concrete railroad ties within the ROW are non-historic. The 

remaining structures associated with the FEC Railway within the FEC Railway Corridor 

ROW have non-historic appearances and representative photographs are included in Figures 

33–37. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 70 

Figure 31: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Masonry Milepost Marker, MP 

195, facing North from the Jernigan Avenue Crossing in Brevard County 

Figure 32: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Concrete Railroad Ties Installed 

within the FEC Railway Corridor ROW, located at the Southwest corner of 1st Street 

and the FEC Railway in Brevard County, facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 71 

Figure 33: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing North from the County Line Road Crossing in Martin 

County 

Figure 34: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing Northeast at the Bridge Road Crossing in Martin 

County 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 72 

Figure 35: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing North from the Highland Drive SE Crossing in Indian 

River County 

Figure 36: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing South from the Walden Road Crossing in St. Lucie 

County 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 73 

Figure 37: Representative Photograph of Non-Historic Structures within the FEC 

Railway Corridor ROW, facing Northwest at the Broadway Street crossing in Brevard 

County 

Also within the FEC Railway ROW, and located at the northeast corner of the railroad and 

17th Street in Vero Beach, are the Florida East Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains 

(8IR1049), which consists of several concrete pilings that formerly acted as the supports for a 

loading platform (Figure 38). According to a 1923 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, there was 

once an FEC Railway Depot with attached platforms at this location. Neither the railroad 

depot nor the loading platforms are extant, and 17th Street has since been reconfigured in this 

location. Only some of the concrete supports remain. It should be noted that the Florida East 

Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains were previously recorded as an archaeological 

site in the FMSF, but are now being considered a historic resource. Despite their connection 

with the FEC Railway, these remaining concrete supports have lost their historic integrity, as 

neither the depot nor the platforms remain. These simple concrete supports no longer convey 

historical information about the FEC Railway or the FEC depot that once stood in this 

location. Although other smaller structures such as old mile markers along roadways and 

railroads can be considered contributing elements, they typically appear as stand-alone 

structures in their original form. These pilings are the simple remnants of a platform that is 

no longer extant. Contributing elements to linear districts typically possess greater integrity, 

which these pilings no longer retain. Due to their lack of historic integrity, the Florida East 

Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains are not considered individually National 

Register–eligible, nor are they considered contributing elements to the FEC Railway linear 

district. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 74 

Figure 38: Location of Florida East Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains 

(8IR1049) showing the Southernmost Post, facing Northwest 

Historic Resources Crossed by the North-South Corridor 

The North-South Corridor crosses eight historic non-railway related resources within the 

APE. The North-South Corridor crosses over three canals, the Historic Canal (8BR1868), 

Indian River Farms Main Canal (8IR1148), and North Relief Canal (8IR1498); travels under 

two historic overpasses consisting of FDOT Bridge No. 880001 (8IR1516) and FDOT Bridge 

No. 880025 (8IR1517) and one segment of historic roadway US Highway 1/Cocoa 

Boulevard (8IR1520), and intersects two historic roadways at-grade including SR A1A 

(8SL1648) and Midway Road (8SL1657). 

A visual inspection of the resources was conducted during the survey of the North-South 

Corridor. Of the nine historic resources crossed by the railway, two are National Register–

eligible: FDOT Bridge No. 880001 (8IR1516) and Dixie Highway (8IR1519/8MT1621). Six 

of the historic resources have been previously determined by the SHPO to be ineligible for 

listing in the National Register: Indian River Farms Main Canal (8IR1148), North Relief 

Canal (8IR1498), FDOT Bridge No. 880025 (8IR1517), US Highway 1/Cocoa Boulevard 

(8BR2697/8IR1520), SR A1A (8SL1648), and Midway Road (8SL1657). The last remaining 

historic resource, Historic Canal (8BR1868) has not been evaluated by the SHPO regarding 

National Register eligibility. However, the initial recorder suggested that it was ineligible for 

listing in the National Register due to its unexceptional nature and its common engineering 

design. 

The improvements in immediate proximity to these resources are limited to the existing 

ROW, and no effects are anticipated to the resources which the railway crosses over or 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 75 

under. There will be no effects to the identified canals with existing bridge crossings. As 

there will be no potential effects, the historic resources crossed within the North-South 

Corridor were not documented on FMSF forms. 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Adjacent to the FEC Railway ROW) 

A total of 60 significant historic resources were identified adjacent to the North-South 

Corridor ROW during the reconnaissance survey. These include 12 in Brevard County, 12 in 

Indian River County, 23 in St. Lucie County, 10 in Martin County, and three in Palm Beach 

County. 

Within the Brevard County portion of the reconnaissance area, one historic district 

determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO was identified. In addition, two historic 

cemeteries that have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register by the 

SHPO were identified. One determined National Register–eligible former historic rail station 

and eight significant historic buildings are located within the Brevard County portion of the 

reconnaissance area; three are National Register–listed and five are determined National 

Register–eligible by the SHPO. 

Within the Indian River County portion of the reconnaissance area, one National Register–

listed historic resource group, one historic linear resource determined National Register–

eligible by the SHPO, and one historic bridge determined National Register–eligible by the 

SHPO were identified. One National Register–listed historic railway station and eight 

significant historic buildings are located within the Indian River Count portion of the 

reconnaissance area: two are National Register–listed, one is determined National Register–

eligible by the SHPO, and five are considered National Register–eligible based on the 

evaluation of the surveyor. 

Within the St. Lucie County portion of the reconnaissance area, one historic district 

considered National Register–eligible based on the evaluation of the surveyor was identified. 

In addition 22 historic buildings were identified; two are National Register–listed, 12 are 

determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO, and eight are considered National 

Register–eligible based on the evaluation of the surveyor. 

Within the Martin County portion of the reconnaissance area, one historic resource group 

considered National Register–eligible based on the evaluation of the surveyor and one 

historic linear resource determined National Register–eligible by the SHPO were identified. 

Eight significant historic buildings are located within the Martin County portion of the 

reconnaissance area; one is National Register–listed, four are determined National Register–

eligible by the SHPO, and three are considered National Register–eligible based on the 

evaluation of the surveyor. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 76 

Within the Palm Beach County portion of the reconnaissance area, one historic district, one 

historic cemetery, and one historic building are considered National Register–eligible based 

on the evaluation of the surveyor. 

This results section includes tables organized by county, and the significant resources 

identified during the reconnaissance survey are in ascending FMSF number order (Tables 

29–45). If the identified resource is locally designated this will typically be noted. Maps with 

the locations of each individually significant historic resource are included in Appendix F. 

Photographs of significant historic resources follow the tables in Figures 39–98, and the 

FMSF forms of previously recorded resources are located in Appendix B. 

Table 29. Brevard County Significant Historic District Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8BR2173 Union Cypress Saw Mill 

Historic District 

Mixed District Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 30. Brevard County Historic Cemetery Identified Within the North-South Corridor 

Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

8BR1724 Hilltop Cemetery c. 1887 Determined National Register–Eligible 

by the SHPO 

8BR1777 Cocoa Cemetery c. 1890 Determined National Register–Eligible 

by the SHPO 

Table 31. Brevard County Significant Former Historic Railway Station Identified Within the 

North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR2779 Former Florida East 

Coast Railway Train 

Station / 317 Rosa 

Jones Drive 

c. 1962 International Determined 

National Register–

Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 32. Brevard County Significant Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR215 Florida Power & Light 

Company Ice Plant / 1604 

South Harbor City 

Boulevard 

1926 Industrial 

Vernacular 

National Register–

Listed 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 77 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8BR759 Whaley, Marion S. Citrus 

Packing House / 2275 

Rockledge Boulevard 

West 

1930 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8BR1163 Lamar, Mattie House / 

361 Stone Street 

c. 1917 Frame Vernacular Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8BR1710 Jorgensen's General 

Store / 5390 US Highway 

1 

1894 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

8BR1723 Cocoa Cemetery Storage 

Building / 101 North 

Cocoa Boulevard 

c. 1931 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8BR1739 Ashley's Cafe & Lounge / 

1609 Rockledge 

Boulevard West 

c. 1932 Tudor Revival Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8BR1741 Rockledge Gardens 

Nursery and Landscaping 

/ 2153 Rockledge 

Boulevard West 

c. 1930 Industrial 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8BR1765 Bohn Equipment 

Company / 255 Olive 

Street 

c. 1927 Industrial 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

Table 33. Indian River County Significant Resource Group Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8IR859 McKee Jungle Gardens FMSF Building Complex National Register–Listed 

Table 34. Indian River County Significant Historic Linear Resource Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8IR1519 Dixie Highway Linear Resource Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 35. Indian River County Significant Historic Bridge Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register Status 

8IR1516 FDOT Bridge No. 880001 Historic Bridge Determined National Register–

Eligible by the SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 78 

Table 36. Indian River County Significant Historic Railway Station Identified Within the NorthSouth Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8IR68 Vero Railroad Station / 

2336 14th Avenue 

1903 Frame Vernacular National Register–

Listed 

Table 37. Indian River County Significant Historic Buildings Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8IR99 George Armstrong 

Braddock House / 1309 

Louisiana Avenue 

1908 Georgian 

Revival 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8IR100 Baughman House / 

1525 North Louisiana 

Avenue 

1900 Neo-Classical 

Revival 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8IR388 5056 North Old Dixie 

Highway 

c. 1920 Bungalow Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8IR624 Old Vero Beach 

Community Building / 

2146 14th Avenue 

1935 Frame 

Vernacular 

National Register–Listed 

8IR858 Hall Of Giants, McKee 

Jungle Gardens / US 1 

and 4th Street 

1940 Other Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8IR975 Vero Beach Diesel 

Power Plant / 1133 19th

Place 

1926 Masonry 

Vernacular 

National Register–Listed 

8IR1464 Vero Beach Community 

Center / 2266 14th

Avenue 

1966 Moderne Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8IR1475 1146 21st Street 1966 Moderne Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

Table 38. St. Lucie County Significant Historic District Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8SL2801 Edgar Town Historic 

District 

Historic District Considered National 

Register–Eligible; Locally 

Designated by the City 

Fort Pierce 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 79 

Table 39. St. Lucie County Significant Historic Resources Within the North-South Corridor 

Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8SL78 Fairmont Manor / 5707 

South Indian River Drive 

1896 Neo-Classical 

Revival 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL220 9015 South Indian River 

Drive 

c.1890 Frame Vernacular Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL229 6109 South Indian River 

Drive 

c. 1915 Colonial Revival Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL234 5309 South Indian River 

Drive 

c. 1935 Colonial Revival Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL236 Riverhill / 4625 South 

Indian River Drive 

1903 Frame Vernacular Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL237 Britt House / 4511 South 

Indian River Drive 

1908 Frame Vernacular Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL238 Card, N.E. House / 3915–

3917 Indian River Drive 

1914 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL247 Hoskins House / 2929 

North Indian River Drive 

1910 Frame Vernacular Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL289 Old Fort Pierce City Hall / 

315 “A” Avenue 

c. 1925 Italianate National Register–

Listed 

8SL799 Sunrise Theater / 117 2nd

Street South 

c. 1923 Mediterranean 

Revival 

National Register–

Listed 

8SL825 601 South 2nd Street c. 1935 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL826 Tyler, Frank House / 519 

2nd Street South 

c. 1924 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL917 Banyon Belle Manor / 

1001 South Indian River 

Drive 

1905 Georgian Revival Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL918 1009 South Indian River 

Drive 

1925 Mission Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL920 1029 South Indian River 

Drive 

1920 Georgian Revival Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL926 Peacock, O.L. House / 

2211 South Indian River 

Drive 

1920 Mediterranean 

Revival 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8SL930 Lesher, Stephen House / 

2501 South Indian River 

Drive 

1920 Italian 

Renaissance 

Revival 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 80 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8SL931 Carlton-Vest House / 2507 

South Indian River Drive 

1920 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL932 Casa Del Rio / 2513 

South Indian River Drive 

1920 Italian 

Renaissance 

Revival 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL933 Phelps, Babe House / 

2521 South Indian River 

Drive 

1935 Monterey Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL1599 Shadetree Studio / 2900 

Old Dixie Highway 

1950 Frame Vernacular Determined National 

Register–Eligible by 

the SHPO 

8SL1922 East Coast Packers / 

2130 Old Dixie Highway 

1950 Industrial 

Vernacular 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

Table 40. Martin County Significant Resource Group Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8MT1573 Witham Field Airport Mixed District Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

Table 41. Martin County Significant Historic Linear Resource Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8MT1621 Dixie Highway Linear Resource Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

Table 42. Martin County Significant Historic Resources Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8MT46 George W. Parks Store / 

Stuart Feed / 101 South 

Flagler Avenue 

1901 Frame 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT84 Fern Building / 73 West 

Flagler Avenue 

c. 1950 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT86 Lyric Theatre / 59 

Southwest Flagler Avenue 

c. 1926 Mediterranean 

Revival 

National Register–

Listed 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 81 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8MT130 East Coast Lumber and 

Supply / 49 Southwest 

Flagler Avenue 

1917 Frame 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT131 Hobe Sound Cabinetry / 

500 South Dixie Highway 

1917 - 

c. 1926 

Masonry 

Vernacular 

Determined National 

Register–Eligible by the 

SHPO 

8MT307 Crary House / 161 

Southwest Flagler Avenue 

1925 Tudor Revival Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8MT838 12200 Southeast Nassau 

Street 

c. 1941 Frame 

Vernacular 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

8MT1066 250 North Flagler Road c. 1940 Masonry 

Vernacular 

Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

Table 43. Palm Beach County Significant Historic District Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Resource Type National Register 

Status 

8PB13340 Kelsey City Layout Historic District Considered National 

Register–Eligible 

Table 44. Palm Beach County Significant Historic Cemetery Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Date Est. National Register Status 

8PB218 Evergreen Cemetery 1916 Considered National 

Register–Eligible; Listed on 

City of West Palm Beach 

Local Register 

Table 45. Palm Beach County Significant Historic Resource Identified Within the North-South 

Corridor Indirect APE 

FMSF # Site Name / Address Const. 

Date Style National Register Status 

8PB6064 St. John’s Baptist 

Church / 2010 A. E. 

Isaacs Avenue 

1929 Mission Considered 

National Register–

Eligible 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 82 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Brevard County) 

Figure 39: Union Cypress Saw Mill Historic District (BR2173), from the corner of Main 

Street and Church Street, facing Northeast 

Figure 40: Hilltop Cemetery (8BR1724), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 83 

Figure 41: Cocoa Cemetery (8BR1777), facing Southwest 

Figure 42: Former Florida East Coast Railway Train Station / 317 Rosa Jones Drive 

(8BR2779), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 84 

Figure 43: Florida Power & Light Company Ice Plant / 1604 South Harbor City 

Boulevard (8BR215), facing Northwest 

Figure 44: Marion S. Whaley Citrus Packing House / 2275 Rockledge Boulevard West 

(8BR759), facing Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 85 

Figure 45: Mattie Lamar House / 361 Stone Street (8BR1163), facing South 

Figure 46: Jorgensen's General Store / 5390 US Highway 1 (8BR1710), facing 

Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 86 

Figure 47: Cocoa Cemetery Storage Building / 101 North Cocoa Boulevard (8BR1723), 

facing Southwest 

Figure 48: Ashley's Cafe & Lounge / 1609 Rockledge Boulevard West (8BR1739), 

facing Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 87 

Figure 49: Rockledge Gardens Nursery and Landscaping / 2153 Rockledge Boulevard 

West (8BR1741), facing Southwest 

Figure 50: Bohn Equipment Company / 255 Olive Street (8BR1765), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 88 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Indian River County) 

Figure 51: McKee Jungle Gardens (8IR859), facing Southeast 

Figure 52: Dixie Highway (8IR1519), facing South from? 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 89 

Figure 53: FDOT Bridge No. 880001 (8IR1516), facing Southeast 

Figure 54: Vero Railroad Station / 2336 14th Avenue (8IR68), facing Northeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 90 

Figure 55: George Armstrong Braddock House / 1309 Louisiana Avenue (8IR99), facing 

West 

Figure 56: Baughman House / 1525 North Louisiana Avenue (8IR100), facing 

Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 91 

Figure 57: 5056 North Old Dixie Highway (8IR388), facing Southeast 

Figure 58: Old Vero Beach Community Building / 2146 14th Avenue (8IR624), facing 

Northeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 92 

Figure 59: Hall Of Giants, McKee Jungle Gardens / US 1 and 4th Street (8IR858), facing 

Northeast 

Figure 60: Vero Beach Diesel Power Plant / 1133 19th Place (8IR975), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 93 

Figure 61: Vero Beach Community Center / 2266 14th Avenue (8IR1464), facing East 

Figure 62: 1146 21st Street (8IR1475), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 94 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(St. Lucie County) 

Figure 63: Edgar Town Historic District, along the West side of North 2nd Street, 

(8SL2801), facing Southwest 

Figure 64: Fairmont Manor / 5707 South Indian River Drive (8SL78), facing Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 95 

Figure 65: 9015 South Indian River Drive (8SL220), facing Southwest 

Figure 66: 6109 South Indian River Drive (8SL229), facing West 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 96 

Figure 67: 5309 South Indian River Drive (8SL234), facing West 

Figure 68: Riverhill / 4625 South Indian River Drive (8SL236), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 97 

Figure 69: Britt House / 4511 South Indian River Drive (8SL237), facing Southwest 

Figure 70: N.E. Card House / 3915–3917 Indian River Drive (8SL238), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 98 

Figure 71: Hoskins House / 2929 North Indian River Drive (8SL247), facing Southwest 

Figure 72: Old Fort Pierce City Hall / 315 “A” Avenue (8SL289), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 99 

Figure 73: Sunrise Theater / 117 2nd Street South (8SL799), facing Southwest 

Figure 74: 601 South 2nd Street (8SL825), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 100 

Figure 75: Frank Tyler House / 519 2nd Street South (8SL826), facing West 

Figure 76: Banyon Belle Manor / 1001 South Indian River Drive (8SL917), facing 

Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 101 

Figure 77: 1009 South Indian River Drive (8SL918), facing West 

Figure 78: 1029 South Indian River Drive (8SL920), facing West 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 102 

Figure 79: O. L. Peacock House / 2211 South Indian River Drive (8SL926), facing 

Northwest 

Figure 80: Stephen Lesher House / 2501 South Indian River Drive (8SL930), facing 

Northwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 103 

Figure 81: Carlton-Vest House / 2507 South Indian River Drive (8SL931), facing 

Northwest 

Figure 82: Casa Del Rio / 2513 South Indian River Drive (8SL932), facing West 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 104 

Figure 83: Babe Phelps House / 2521 South Indian River Drive (8SL933), facing 

Southwest 

Figure 84: Shadetree Studio / 2900 Old Dixie Highway (8SL1599), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 105 

Figure 85: East Coast Packers / 2130 Old Dixie Highway (8SL1922), facing Southeast 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Martin County) 

Figure 86: Witham Field Airport (8MT1573), facing South 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 106 

Figure 87: Dixie Highway (8MT1621), facing North 

Figure 88: George W. Parks Store / Stuart Feed / 101 South Flagler Avenue (8MT46), 

facing East 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 107 

Figure 89: Fern Building / 73 West Flagler Avenue (8MT84), facing North 

Figure 90: Lyric Theatre / 59 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT86), facing Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 108 

Figure 91: East Coast Lumber and Supply / 49 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT130), 

facing West 

Figure 92: Hobe Sound Cabinetry / 500 South Dixie Highway (8MT131), facing West 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 109 

Figure 93: Crary House / 161 Southwest Flagler Avenue (8MT307), facing Northeast 

Figure 94: 12200 Southeast Nassau Street (8MT838), facing South 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 110 

Figure 95: 250 North Flagler Road (8MT1066), facing Northeast 

Significant Historic Resources within the North-South Corridor Indirect APE 

(Palm Beach County) 

Figure 96: 10th Street within the Kelsey City Layout (8PB13340), facing Southwest 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 111 

Figure 97: Evergreen Cemetery (8PB218), facing South 

Figure 98: St. John’s Baptist Church / 2010 A. E. Isaacs Avenue (8PB6064), facing 

Southeast 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 112 

Historic Districts Adjacent to the North-South Corridor At-Grade Crossings 

As a result of the reconnaissance survey and background research, nine at-grade crossings 

were identified within or adjacent to one National Register–eligible historic district and two 

considered National Register–eligible historic districts located along the North-South 

Corridor. Three at-grade crossings are located adjacent to the National Register–eligible 

Union Cypress Historic District (8BR2173) in Brevard County, four at-grade crossings are 

located within the National Register–eligible Edgartown Historic District (8SL2801) in St. 

Lucie County, and two at-grade crossings are located within and adjacent to the National 

Register–eligible Kelsey City Layout Historic District (8PB13340) in Palm Beach County. 

The locations of the at-grade crossings relative to the identified historic districts are 

illustrated on the maps in Appendix F and listed in Table 46. 

 

Table 46. At-Grade Crossings Located Within or Adjacent to National Register–Eligible or 

Considered National Register–Eligible Historic Districts and Corresponding Map Number 

Street Name Adjacent Historic District(s) Map No. In 

Appendix F 

Brevard County 

Line Street National Register–eligible Union Cypress 

Historic District (8BR2173) Jernigan Avenue Map 21 

University Boulevard East 

St. Lucie County 

Avenue H Considered National Register–eligible 

Edgartown Historic District (8SL2801) 

Map 54 Seaway Drive 

Avenue D 

Avenue C/AE Backus Avenue 

Palm Beach County 

Old Dixie Highway/Park Avenue Considered National Register–eligible Kelsey 

City Layout Historic District (8PB13340) Map 91 Silver Beach Road 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 113 

CONCLUSIONS 

The CRAR of the All Aboard Florida (AAF) Passenger Rail Project (Project) from Orlando 

to West Palm Beach was undertaken at the request of AAF – Operations LLC by Janus 

Research of Tampa, Florida. The overall Project proposes implementing a privately owned, 

operated, and maintained intercity passenger rail service that will connect downtown Miami, 

Florida to downtown West Palm Beach, Florida with one stop in downtown Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida with continuing service to Orlando, Florida. To accommodate this, the Project 

proposes improvements to existing rail line within the existing FEC Railway Corridor Main 

Line ROW; addition of new or modified rail within the existing FEC Railway Corridor Main 

Line ROW; construction of new rail line along the SR 528 transportation corridor; 

construction of new passenger rail stations in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and 

Orlando; upgrades to numerous bridges, highway crossings, and pedestrian crossings; 

addition of new track signal controls at key intersections; and construction of a new VMF 

near the Orlando station terminus. The objective of this survey was to identify cultural 

resources within the APE and assess their eligibility for listing in the National Register 

according to the criteria set forth in 36 CFR Section 60.4. 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF 

The archaeological APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF is included entirely within 

the boundaries of archaeological investigations conducted for An Archaeological and 

Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Railroad (Randy and de 

la Fuente 1981), Improvements to the Orlando International Airport (Browning 1977), and 

the CRAS of the GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida (Janus 

Research 1998). A review of these previous surveys and an updated search of the FMSF data 

identified one previously recorded archaeological site within the archaeological resources 

APE established for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. South Terminal Northeast 

(8OR8277) is located within the Airport Rail Alignment in Orange County and is a lowdensity precolumbian lithic scatter consisting of two lithic waste flakes. The SHPO 

previously determined this site to be ineligible for listing in the National Register in 1998. 

These three aforementioned surveys also included the entirety of the historic APE for the 

Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. Since additional resources could have become historic 

since these previous surveys were conducted, an updated desktop was undertaken. The 

updated desktop survey resulted in the identification of no historic resources located within 

the APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and VMF. 

East-West Corridor 

The archaeological APE for the East-West Corridor is contained partially within the 

boundaries of the APE developed for the CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E Study from SR 520 to 

the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard Counties (Janus Research 

2005) and the CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, 

Florida (Piper Archaeology 1990). An updated search of the FMSF data was conducted to 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 114 

identify previously recorded sites within and adjacent to the East-West Corridor. Subsurface 

testing was conducted within previously unsurveyed areas located within the expected 

preferred alternative (Alternative E and the common elements on both the eastern and 

western ends of the East-West Corridor). No previously recorded or newly recorded 

archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological APE for the East-West 

Corridor as a result of the current survey. Access to a portion of the East-West Corridor 

located within one private landowner’s property was not yet coordinated during the current 

survey. Once access is coordinated, a supplemental addendum report will be completed to 

document the results of pedestrian survey and subsurface testing conducted within this 

portion of the East-West Corridor. 

The historic resources survey for the AAF Railway East-West Corridor resulted in the 

identification of nine historic resources within the APE. Of the identified historic resources, 

six have been previously recorded (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8OR9851, 8BD1870, 8BD2697, 

and 8OR9850) and three are newly recorded (8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 8BR3068). These 

resources consist of five historic buildings (8BR1735, 8BR1736, 8BR3066, 8BR3067, and 

8BR3068), one historic resource group (8OR9851), and three historic linear resources 

(8BD1870, 8BD2697, and 8OR9850). All of the previously recorded historic resources with 

the exception of the National Register–eligible Florida East Coast Railroad (8BR1870) have 

already been determined ineligible for inclusion in the National Register by the SHPO. The 

three newly recorded historic buildings identified within the project APE are considered 

ineligible for listing in the National Register either individually or as part of a district. A 

FMSF form for each of these three historic resources is included in Appendix A. Previously 

completed FMSF forms for historic resources along the East West Corridor are also included 

in Appendix A. 

North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line 

The archaeological APE for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line is included 

entirely within the APE established for the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I: A 

Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the FEC Mainline in Brevard, Duval, Flagler, 

Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia Counties, Florida (PCI 

and Janus Research 2010). An updated search of the FMSF data was conducted to identify 

previously recorded sites within and adjacent to the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW. 

Due to its ongoing use as an active freight line with frequent train traffic, subsurface 

archaeological testing was not feasible within the FEC ROW for reasons of safety. 

Five previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological APE 

for the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line. One archaeological site (8IR846) was 

identified within the Indian River County segment of the APE; one site (8MT1287) was 

identified within the Martin County segment of the APE; and three previously recorded sites 

(8SL41, 8SL1136, and 8SL1772) were identified within the St. Lucie County segment of the 

APE. While none of these five previously recorded archaeological sites are National 

Register–listed, and none have been previously determined by the SHPO to be National 

Register–eligible, 8MT1287 and 8SL41 were evaluated by the initial Florida Master Site File 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 115 

(FMSF) recorder as potentially National Register–eligible. No previously recorded 

archeological sites were identified within the Brevard or Palm Beach county segments of the 

North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line APE. 

The FEC Railway (8BR1870/8IR1497/8IR1518/8SL3014/8MT1391/8MT1450/8PB12102) 

has been previously determined by SHPO to be eligible for listing in the National Register as 

a linear historic district. Previously completed FMSF forms for the railway are included in 

Appendix B. 

Thirteen historic railway bridges were identified within the North-South FEC Railway 

Corridor Main Line ROW APE (8BR3058, 8BR3059, 8BR3060, 8BR3061, 

8BR3062/8IR1569, 8SL3191, 8SL3192, 8MT1623, 8MT1382, 8MT1624, 8MT1625, 

8MT1626, and 8PB16041). FMSF forms were completed for each bridge, and are included in 

Appendix C. With the exception of 8SL3192 which is non-contributing, each identified 

bridge is considered a contributing resource within the National Register–eligible FEC 

Railway linear historic district. Four of these bridges 8BR3058, 8BR3062/8IR1569, 

8MT1382, and 8PB16041 are also considered individually eligible for listing in the National 

Register. 

The only FEC Railway owned or associated resource identified within the FEC Railway 

Corridor Main Line ROW was the Florida East Coast Railroad Platform Structural Remains 

(8IR1049). Due to lack of remaining materials, this resource is considered ineligible for 

inclusion in the National Register on an individual basis, and is also considered noncontributing to the FEC Railway linear historic district. An FMSF form this resource is 

included in Appendix C. While dates of construction were not available for all resources 

within the FEC Railway Corridor Main Line ROW, the resources visible within the ROW 

appear non-historic and ineligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

A total of 60 significant historic resources were identified adjacent to the North-South FEC 

Railway Corridor Main Line ROW within the project limits during the Reconnaissance 

Survey. These include 12 in Brevard County, 12 in Indian River County, 23 in St. Lucie 

County, 10 in Martin County, and three in Palm Beach County. 

Along the North-South FEC Railway Corridor Main Line three at-grade crossings are located 

adjacent to one National Register–eligible historic district in Brevard County (Union Cypress 

Saw Mill Historic District [8BR2173]); four at-grade crossings are located within a 

considered National Register–eligible historic district in St. Lucie County (Edgar Town 

Historic District [8SL2801]); and two at-grade crossings are located within and adjacent to a 

considered National Register–eligible Kelsey City Layout (8PB13340) in Palm Beach 

County.
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 116 

REFERENCES 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 

1992 An Archaeological Survey of Indian River County, Florida. Manuscript on file, 

Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

Amtrak 

2010 Draft Environmental Assessment and 4(f) Statement for the FEC Amtrak Passenger 

Rail Study, Jacksonville (Duval County) to Miami (Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

Browning, William D. 

1977 Improvements to the Orlando International Airport. Manuscript on file, Florida 

Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

Carr, Robert S., Chris Eck, and James Pepe 

1998 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Martin County, Florida. Manuscript on file at 

the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

Carr, Robert S. and James Pepe 

2000 An Archaeological Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida. Manuscript on file at the 

Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

2013 NEPA and NHPA – A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106. Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. Coordination with the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 36 CFR 800.8. 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 

2006 Florida Intercity Passenger Rail “Vision Plan”. Electronic document, 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/Publications/Plans/06VisionPlan/ExecReportFinal.pdf, 

accessed July 1, 2013. 

2009 Florida Rail System Plan. Electronic document, 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/PlanDevel/Documents/2009PolicyElementoftheRailSyste

mPlan-webfinal.pdf, accessed July 1, 2013. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

2012 Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida 

Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278, accessed July 1, 2013. 

2013 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Finding of No 

Significant Impact For the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm 

Beach to Miami, Florida January 2013. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04277, accessed July 1, 2013. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 117 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

1843a Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 30 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1843b Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 31 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1844 Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 35 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845a Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 30 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845b Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 31 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845c Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 33 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845d Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 35 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845e Plat Map for Township 24 South, Range 35 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845f Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 33 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1845g Surveyor’s Notes for Township 24 South, Range 35 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1846 Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 35 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1847 Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 34 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1848a Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 32 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1848b Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 34 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1848c Surveyor’s Notes for Township 23 South, Range 32 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1852a Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 34 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1852b Plat Map for Township 23 South, Range 35 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 118 

1859a Plat Map for Township 24 South, Range 36 East. Division of State Lands, Board of 

Trustees Land Document System. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

1859b Surveyor’s Notes for Township 24 South, Range 36 East. Electronic document, 

http://199.73.242.56/default.asp, accessed September 11, 2012. 

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) 

1998 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Terminal Complex at the Orlando 

International Airport. 

2010 Recommendations, High Speed Rail Station & Maintenance Facility Locations & 

Related Issues. Slide Presentation. Electronic document, http://www.orlandoairports 

.net/poitras/HSR_presentation20100317.pdf, accessed July 1, 2013. 

Kennedy, William J., Charles Robert, Shih-Lung Shaw, and Ryan Wheeler 

1991 Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County: A Preliminary Prediction Study. 

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton 

Janus Research 

1998 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority's 

(GOAA) South Terminal Complex Environmental Assessment (EA) in Orange County, 

Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Department of State, Division of Historical 

Resources, Tallahassee. 

2005 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the SR 528 PD&E Study, from SR 520 to 

the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange. Manuscript on file at the FDHR, 

Tallahassee. 

2006 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Study, South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit 

Analysis. Manuscript on file at the FDHR, Tallahassee. 

2009 Phase 2 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Study of the South Florida East Coast 

Corridor Transit Analysis. Manuscript on file, Florida Department of State, Division 

of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

2012 Cultural Resources Assessment Report for All Aboard Florida from West Palm Beach 

to Miami, Volumes I-IV. Manuscript on file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 

Panamerican Consultants and Janus Research 

2010 FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project. Manuscript on file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 

Piper Archaeology 

1990 CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida. 

Manuscript on file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 

Randy, Daniel and Francisco de la Fuente 

1981 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. Stanton Energy 

Center Railroad. Manuscript on file at the Florida Division of Historical Resources, 

Tallahassee. 
CRAR for the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach 

Orange, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties 

September 2013 

Janus Research 119 

Stevens, Robert 

2012a Email to Martin Peate of URS Corporation, August 14, 2012. On file, Janus Research, 

Tampa, Florida. 

2012b Email to Emily Sheckels Ahouse of Janus Research, July 19, 2012. On file, Janus 

Research, Tampa, Florida. 

Texas Transport Institute (TTI) 

2011 Urban Mobility Report. Electronic document, 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/Publications/Plans/06VisionPlan/ExecReportFinal.pdf, 

accessed July 1, 2013. 

United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), and Florida Department of Transportation 

2005 SR 528 PD&E Study, Final Preliminary Engineering Report. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) 

2013 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the All Aboard Florida Miami—Orlando 

Passenger Rail Project. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 72. Monday, April 15, 2013. pp 

22363-4. 

University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries 

2011 Aerial Photography: Florida Collection. University of Florida Digital Collections. 

Electronic documents, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/aerials, accessed September 11, 2012. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

1974 Soil Survey of Brevard County, Florida. United States Department of 

Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

1989 Soil Survey of Orange County Area, Florida. United States Department of 

Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service. 
APPENDIX A: 

NEW AND PREVIOUSLY RECORDED FMSF FORMS 

FOR THE EAST-WEST CORRIDOR APE 






















Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # _______________ 

Page 1 

Original 

Update 

HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Shaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. 

Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions. 

Site Name(s) (address if none) ____________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) _________ 

Survey Project Name _________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) ______________ 

National Register Category (please check one) building structure district site object 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction

Address:

Cross Streets (nearest / between) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

USGS 7.5 Map Name _____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________ 

City / Town (within 3 miles) ________________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________ 

Tax Parcel # ___________________________________________________ Landgrant __________________________________________ 

Subdivision Name _________________________________________________ Block ___________________ Lot _____________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Construction Year: _________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later 

Original Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Current Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Other Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Moves: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Original address ___________________________________________________ 

Alterations: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Additions: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Architect (last name first): _______________________________________ Builder (last name first): ______________________________________ 

Ownership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Is the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? yes no unknown Describe ___________________________________

DESCRIPTION

Style __________________________________________ Exterior Plan ________________________________ Number of Stories _______ 

Exterior Fabric(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Type(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Material(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

 Roof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Windows (types, materials, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Distinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) _________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ancillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ____________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date _______________ Init.________ 

 _______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date _______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2) 

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us 

BR03066

7-1-2013

7-11-2013

1

5161 Palm Avenue

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

5161 Palm Avenue

S side of Palm Avenue, W of Pine Street

SHARPES 1980

Cocoa Brevard

24S 35E 9

24-35-09-25-16-10 

516615 3142928

1963

Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) 1963

Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) 2013

c.2005 restuccoed, new porch, wind./doors, etc.

Masonry Vernacular Rectangular 1

Stucco _

Gable _ _

Composition shingles _ _

_ _

Metal SHS 1/1

stucco surrounds; stucco banding on porch supports

non-historic metal quonset style 

garage located to the S
Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site #8 ______________ 

DESCRIPTION (continued)

Chimney: No.____ Chimney Material(s): 1. ___________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Structural System(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 3. ____________________________ 

Foundation Type(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Foundation Material(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Main Entrance (stylistic details) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Porch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition (overall resource condition): excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Narrative Description of Resource _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Archaeological Remains __________________________________________________________________ Check if Archaeological Form Completed

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research building permits Sanborn maps 

FL State Archives/photo collection city directory occupant/owner interview plat maps 

property appraiser / tax records newspaper files neighbor interview Public Lands Survey (DEP) 

cultural resource survey (CRAS) historic photos interior inspection HABS/HAER record search 

other methods (describe) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use continuation sheet if needed) ________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? yes no insufficient information

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1. ___________________________________ 3. ___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2. ___________________________________ 4. ___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

 USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED 

 LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP

 PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

 Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required

Attachments

(available from most property appraiser web sites)

BR03066

Concrete block _

Continuous

Concrete Block

N side, at the shed roof porch, newer door with one-light glass 

2: small entry porch on the N side with a shed roof; additional porch 

on the the S (rear) side that is not visible from the ROW 

This Masonry Vernacular residence has undergone several recent updates to its 

facade. It retains its simple form and has few decorative elements.

historic aerial photography

This building exhibits a common design type 

found throughout Florida and the exterior facade has undergone several alterations. Therefore, it is 

considered ineligible for listing in the National Register.

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com

Janus Research


Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # _______________ 

Page 1 

Original 

Update 

HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Shaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. 

Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions. 

Site Name(s) (address if none) ____________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) _________ 

Survey Project Name _________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) ______________ 

National Register Category (please check one) building structure district site object 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction

Address:

Cross Streets (nearest / between) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

USGS 7.5 Map Name _____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________ 

City / Town (within 3 miles) ________________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________ 

Tax Parcel # ___________________________________________________ Landgrant __________________________________________ 

Subdivision Name _________________________________________________ Block ___________________ Lot _____________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Construction Year: _________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later 

Original Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Current Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Other Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Moves: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Original address ___________________________________________________ 

Alterations: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Additions: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Architect (last name first): _______________________________________ Builder (last name first): ______________________________________ 

Ownership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Is the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? yes no unknown Describe ___________________________________

DESCRIPTION

Style __________________________________________ Exterior Plan ________________________________ Number of Stories _______ 

Exterior Fabric(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Type(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Material(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

 Roof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Windows (types, materials, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Distinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) _________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ancillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ____________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date _______________ Init.________ 

 _______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date _______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2) 

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us 

BR03067

7-1-2013

7-11-2013

2

3800 Pine Street

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

3800 Pine Street

SW corner of Palm Avenue and Pine Street

SHARPES 1980

Cocoa Brevard

24S 35E 9

24-35-09-25-16-1 

516948 3141274

1965

Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) 1965

Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) 2013

c.1990s wind./doors, porch supp., shutters repl.

Masonry Vernacular Rectangular 1

Stucco _

Gable _ _

Composition shingles _ _

_ _

Metal SHS 1/1

faux shutters, lattice at the porch

3: one non-historic metal shed to 

the W, one wood frame shed to the SW, and one metal carport to the east at the front of the house
Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site #8 ______________ 

DESCRIPTION (continued)

Chimney: No.____ Chimney Material(s): 1. ___________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Structural System(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 3. ____________________________ 

Foundation Type(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Foundation Material(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Main Entrance (stylistic details) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Porch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition (overall resource condition): excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Narrative Description of Resource _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Archaeological Remains __________________________________________________________________ Check if Archaeological Form Completed

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research building permits Sanborn maps 

FL State Archives/photo collection city directory occupant/owner interview plat maps 

property appraiser / tax records newspaper files neighbor interview Public Lands Survey (DEP) 

cultural resource survey (CRAS) historic photos interior inspection HABS/HAER record search 

other methods (describe) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use continuation sheet if needed) ________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? yes no insufficient information

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1. ___________________________________ 3. ___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2. ___________________________________ 4. ___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

 USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED 

 LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP

 PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

 Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required

Attachments

(available from most property appraiser web sites)

BR03067

1 Concrete

Concrete block _

Continuous

Concrete Block

E side at porch, screen door in front of main door

1: E side, gable roof entry porch with lattice

This Masonry Vernacular has simple form and few decorative elements.

historic aerial photography

This building exhibits a common design type 

found throughout Florida, and limited research revealed no significant historical associations. Therefore, 

it is considered ineligible for listing in the National Register.

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com

Janus Research


Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # _______________ 

Page 1 

Original 

Update 

HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Shaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. 

Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions. 

Site Name(s) (address if none) ____________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) _________ 

Survey Project Name _________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) ______________ 

National Register Category (please check one) building structure district site object 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction

Address:

Cross Streets (nearest / between) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

USGS 7.5 Map Name _____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________ 

City / Town (within 3 miles) ________________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________ 

Tax Parcel # ___________________________________________________ Landgrant __________________________________________ 

Subdivision Name _________________________________________________ Block ___________________ Lot _____________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Construction Year: _________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later 

Original Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Current Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Other Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Moves: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Original address ___________________________________________________ 

Alterations: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Additions: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Architect (last name first): _______________________________________ Builder (last name first): ______________________________________ 

Ownership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Is the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? yes no unknown Describe ___________________________________

DESCRIPTION

Style __________________________________________ Exterior Plan ________________________________ Number of Stories _______ 

Exterior Fabric(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Type(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Material(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

 Roof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Windows (types, materials, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Distinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) _________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ancillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ____________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date _______________ Init.________ 

 _______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date _______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2) 

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us 

BR03068

7-2-2013

7-11-2013

3

2800 Clearlake Road

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

2800 Clearlake Road

SW corner of Palm Avenue and Pine Street

SHARPES 1980

Cocoa Brevard

24S 36E 17

24-36-17-00-252 

524296 3141274

1963

Storage building 1963

Commercial 2013

c.1990s wind./doors, porch supp., shutters repl.

Industrial Vernacular Rectangular 1

Metal _

Gable _ _

Sheet metal:5V crimp _ _

_ _

no windows visible

signage

none
Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site #8 ______________ 

DESCRIPTION (continued)

Chimney: No.____ Chimney Material(s): 1. ___________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Structural System(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 3. ____________________________ 

Foundation Type(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Foundation Material(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Main Entrance (stylistic details) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Porch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition (overall resource condition): excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Narrative Description of Resource _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Archaeological Remains __________________________________________________________________ Check if Archaeological Form Completed

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research building permits Sanborn maps 

FL State Archives/photo collection city directory occupant/owner interview plat maps 

property appraiser / tax records newspaper files neighbor interview Public Lands Survey (DEP) 

cultural resource survey (CRAS) historic photos interior inspection HABS/HAER record search 

other methods (describe) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use continuation sheet if needed) ________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? yes no insufficient information

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1. ___________________________________ 3. ___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2. ___________________________________ 4. ___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

 USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED 

 LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP

 PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

 Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required

Attachments

(available from most property appraiser web sites)

BR03068

Wood frame _

Continuous _

Concrete Block _

N side, simple metal entry door

1: large concrete block loading dock extends out on the S side

This Industrial Vernacular building has simple form and little architectural 

detailing. There appear to be entries on all four sides of the building.

historic aerial photography

This building exhibits a common design type 

found throughout Florida, and limited research revealed no significant historical associations. Therefore, 

it is considered ineligible for listing in the National Register.

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com

Janus Research












APPENDIX B: 

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED FMSF FORMS FOR THE 

NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR HISTORIC RESOURCES 


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































APPENDIX C: 

NEW AND UPDATED FMSF FORMS FOR THE 

NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR HISTORIC RESOURCES 
Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # _______________ 

Page 1 

Original 

Update 

HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Shaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. 

Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions. 

Site Name(s) (address if none) ____________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) _________ 

Survey Project Name _________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) ______________ 

National Register Category (please check one) building structure district site object 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction

Address:

Cross Streets (nearest / between) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

USGS 7.5 Map Name _____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________ 

City / Town (within 3 miles) ________________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________ 

Tax Parcel # ___________________________________________________ Landgrant __________________________________________ 

Subdivision Name _________________________________________________ Block ___________________ Lot _____________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Construction Year: _________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later 

Original Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Current Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Other Use __________________________________________ From (year):____________ To (year):____________ 

Moves: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Original address ___________________________________________________ 

Alterations: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Additions: yes no unknown Date: ____________ Nature _________________________________________________________ 

Architect (last name first): _______________________________________ Builder (last name first): ______________________________________ 

Ownership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Is the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? yes no unknown Describe ___________________________________

DESCRIPTION

Style __________________________________________ Exterior Plan ________________________________ Number of Stories _______ 

Exterior Fabric(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Type(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

Roof Material(s) 1. _______________________________ 2. ______________________________ 3. _______________________________ 

 Roof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Windows (types, materials, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Distinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) _________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ancillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ____________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date _______________ Init.________ 

 _______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date _______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2) 

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us 

IR01049

6-28-2013

8-30-2013

14

FEC Railroad Platform Supports

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

NE corner of Commerce Avenue and 17th St

VERO BEACH 1983

Vero Beach Indian River

33S 39E 1

559700 3056470

1923

Air/Bus/Rail terminal or depot c1923 c1960

Demolished/Destroyed c1960 2013

c.1960 Platform destroyed 

Unknown Unknown

FEC Railway 

Other

Not applicable

Not applicable

N/a

N/a

None 
Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site #8 ______________ 

DESCRIPTION (continued)

Chimney: No.____ Chimney Material(s): 1. ___________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Structural System(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 3. ____________________________ 

Foundation Type(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Foundation Material(s): 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 

Main Entrance (stylistic details) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Porch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition (overall resource condition): excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Narrative Description of Resource _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Archaeological Remains __________________________________________________________________ Check if Archaeological Form Completed

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research building permits Sanborn maps 

FL State Archives/photo collection city directory occupant/owner interview plat maps 

property appraiser / tax records newspaper files neighbor interview Public Lands Survey (DEP) 

cultural resource survey (CRAS) historic photos interior inspection HABS/HAER record search 

other methods (describe) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use continuation sheet if needed) ________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? yes no insufficient information

Appears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1. ___________________________________ 3. ___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2. ___________________________________ 4. ___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

 USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED 

 LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP

 PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

 Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required

Attachments

(available from most property appraiser web sites)

IR01049

Not applicable

_

N/a

N/a

See continuation sheet

Historic aerial and aerial photographs

Site file for 8IR1049, Panamerican 

Consultants, Inc. 2003. On file, Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

See continuation sheet

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com

Janus Research
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1049 

SITE NAME: FEC Railway Pilings 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The remaining FEC Railway Pilings once connected to the FEC Depot building are 

located at the northeast corner of the railroad tracks and 17th Street in Township 33 

South, Range 39 East, and Section 1 of the Vero Beach (1983) USGS quadrangle map in 

Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. The FEC Railway depot building and 

platform appear on Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of Vero Beach from 1923 (Figure 1). 

The remaining pilings are concrete and are generally deteriorated. The number of 

remaining pilings is unknown as the area is obscured by vegetation growth. Some pilings 

have fallen and some are covered in vegetation. According to the previous Florida Master 

Site File (FMSF) form, a fence was present at the site (Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 

2003). This fence was not observed during the 2013 site documentation. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The remaining concrete pilings are all that is left of the former FEC Railway depot 

building. The depot was constructed at some time prior to 1923 according to historic 

Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of Vero Beach (Figure 1). These pilings were part of the 

loading platform of the FEC Depot building (Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2003). The 

depot was rectangular in form and of wood frame construction. The FEC Railway Depot 

appears on historic aerial photographs of the area from 1951 (Figure 2). The platform was 

destroyed at some time after 1951. Figure 3 is a current aerial photograph of the area 

illustrating the absence of the FEC Railway platform and depot building. The FEC 

Railway pilings are not considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

individually or as part of a historic district. The building and platform associated with the 

pilings is no longer extant and the historic significance of the site is no longer 

communicated due to lack of historic integrity. The pilings themselves are in poor 

condition, overrun with vegetation, and essentially just ruins of the former platform. Due 

to the fact that historic integrity is non-existent, the FEC Railway concrete pilings do not 

meet criteria for listing in the National Register. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1049 

SITE NAME: FEC Railway Pilings 

Figure 1: A Historic 1923 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Vero Beach, Florida Depicting the FEC 

Railway Depot Building and Platform 
PAGE 5 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1049 

SITE NAME: FEC Railway Pilings 

Figure 2: A Historic 1951 Aerial Photograph Illustrating the Location of the FEC Railway Depot 

Building and Platform 
PAGE 6 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1049 

SITE NAME: FEC Railway Pilings 

Figure 3: A Current Aerial Photograph Illustrating the Location of the Former FEC Railway Depot 

Building and Platform 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 

2003 Site file for the FEC RR Fence/Platform Supports (8OR1049). On file, Florida 

Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

BR03058

5-20-2013

6-20-2013

1

Fixed Bridge over Eau Gallie River

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Eau Gallie River

Melbourne Brevard

27S 37E 21

535961 3110975

1925

Unknown 

Railway

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

BR03058

15 600

21

Girder--Floorbeam

Steel

Other

Steel Concrete

The bridge features steel bents on concrete foundations

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Engineering

Transportation

Community planning & development

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3058 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over the Eau Gallie River 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

This Fixed Bridge over the Eau Gallie River carries the Florida East Coast Railway 

(FEC) over the Eau Gallie River in Township 27 South, Range 37 East, Section 21 of the 

Melbourne West, (1988) USGS quadrangle map in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. 

The fixed bridge runs north to south and is located at mile post 190.47. It runs parallel to 

North Harbor City Boulevard. The bridge was constructed in 1925 and has 15 spans with 

an approximate length of 600 feet. The span width is approximately 21 feet. To the east 

and west of the bridge are steel girders. The bridge features one set of standard railroad 

tracks and an open deck. The substructure of the bridge consists of steel bents on concrete 

piles. Cross-ties are also featured between bents. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure which spans a great distance and is 

an example of a fixed viaduct bridge. The bridge is significant as an excellent example of 

a fixed viaduct bridge that spans a substantial distance. The bridge retains a high degree 

of historic integrity. This fixed bridge is considered to be individually eligible for listing 

in the National Register under Criterion C in the category of Engineering. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over the Eau Gallie River is a contributing historic resource to a FEC Railway 

linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3058 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over the Eau Gallie River 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

BR03059

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

2

Bridge over Crane Creek & Melbourne St

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Crane Creek/Melbourne St

MELBOURNE EAST 1980

Melbourne Brevard

28S 37E 2

538953 3105700

1925

Unknown 

Railway

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

BR03059

400

22

Other

Concrete

Steel Concrete

Steel bents with concrete foundations

Aerial Photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3059 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue carries the Florida East 

Coast Railway (FEC) over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue in Township 28 South, 

Range 37 East, Section 2 of the Melbourne East (1980) USGS quadrangle map in 

Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The fixed bridge runs north to east and at the south 

end carries the FEC Railway over Crane Creek and at the north end carries the FEC 

Railway over Melbourne Avenue. It was constructed in 1925 and is located at mile post 

194.34. It is approximately 400 feet in length and approximately 22 feet in width. The 

bridge features an open deck with steel ties. At the north portion of the bridge which 

carries the railway over Melbourne Avenue, the substructure consists of steel bents with 

cross-ties. At the south portion of the bridge which carries the railway over Crane Creek, 

the substructure consists of steel bents and concrete foundations. Utilities also run at the 

west of the bridge. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue is not 

significant in terms of engineering and is not considered individually eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue is considered a contributing historic 

resource to a FEC Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3059 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Crane Creek and Melbourne Avenue 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

BR03060

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

3

Fixed Bridge over Turkey Creek

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Turkey Creek

MELBOURNE EAST 1980

Melbourne Brevard

28S 37E 24

541068 3100807

1925

Unknown 

Railway

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

BR03060

186

23

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete piers

Aerial Photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3060 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Turkey Creek 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Turkey Creek carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) over 

Turkey Creek in Township 28 South, Range 37 East, Section 24 of the Melbourne East 

(1980) USGS quadrangle map in the vicinity of Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. 

The fixed bridge runs north to south and is located at the railway’s mile post 197.7. It 

runs parallel to the Dixie Highway Northeast. The bridge was constructed in 1925 and is 

approximately 186 feet in length and approximately 23 feet in width. The bridge consists 

of steel girders and features a deck plate girder. There is a single set of standard tracks 

and utilities to the west of the track. The substructure of the bridge consists of concrete 

piers and concrete abutments. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over Turkey Creek is not significant in terms of 

engineering and is not considered individually eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Turkey Creek is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC 

Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3060 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Turkey Creek 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

BR03061

5-5-2013

6-24-2013

4

Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Goat Creek

GRANT 1970

Palm Bay Brevard

29S 38E 8

544609 3093866

1959

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

The deck of the bridge was replaced in 2004.
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

BR03061

2 70

30

Other

Wood

Other

Wood

Timber piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3061 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) over 

Goat Creek in Township 29 South, Range 38 East, Section 8 of the Grant (1970) USGS 

quadrangle map in the vicinity of Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. This timber trestle 

bridge was constructed in 1959 and runs roughly north to south. It is located at mile post 

202.59. It is approximately 70 feet in length and approximately 30 feet in length. The 

concrete ballasted deck of the bridge was replaced in 2004. The bridge consists of a 

single standard railroad track. The substructure of the bridge consists of timber piles. The 

Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek is no longer in use. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek is not significant in terms of 

engineering and is not considered individually eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Goat Creek is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC Railway 

linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3061 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Goat Creek 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

BR03062

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

5

Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Sebastian River

SEBASTIAN 1970

Sebastian 

30S 38E 36

549554 3079381

1926

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

BR03062

1,635

25

Other

Steel

Steel bents on concrete foundations

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Engineering

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3062 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) 

over the Sebastian River in Township 30 South, Range 38 East, Section 36 in the vicinity 

of Sebastian, Brevard County, Florida. The bridge runs north to south. The bridge is 

approximately 1,635 feet in length, is approximately 25 feet in width, and was 

constructed in 1926. It is located at mile post 212.07. The bridge features an open deck 

and is a deck plate steel girder. The substructure consists of steel towers on concrete 

foundations with steel ties. This bridge is located in both Brevard County and Indian 

River County. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure which spans a great distance and is 

an example of a deck plate girder bridge. This fixed bridge is significant as an excellent 

example of a deck plate girder bridge that spans a substantial distance. Further, the bridge 

serves as means of connection between Brevard and Indian River counties and retains a 

high degree of historic integrity. The Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River is individually 

eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C in the category of 

Engineering. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Sebastian River is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC 

Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8BR3062 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

IR01569

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

6

Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River 

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Sebastian River

SEBASTIAN 1970

Sebastian Indian River

30S 37E 36

549554 3079381

1926

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

IR01569

1,635

25

Steel

Steel bents on concrete foundations 

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Engineering

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1569 

SITE NAME: Fixed Railway Bridge over Sebastian River 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) 

over the Sebastian River in Township 30 South, Range 38 East, Section 36 in the vicinity 

of Sebastian, Brevard County, Florida. The bridge runs north to south. The bridge is 

approximately 1,635 feet in length, is approximately 25 feet in width, and was 

constructed in 1926. It is located at mile post 212.07. The bridge features an open deck 

and is a deck plate steel girder. The substructure consists of steel towers on concrete 

foundations with steel ties. The bridge is located in both Brevard and Indian River 

counties. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure which spans a great distance and is 

an example of a deck plate girder bridge. This fixed bridge is significant as an excellent 

example of a deck plate girder bridge that spans a substantial distance. Further, the bridge 

serves as means of connection between Brevard and Indian River counties and retains a 

high degree of historic integrity. The Fixed Bridge over Sebastian River is individually 

eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C in the category of 

Engineering. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Sebastian River is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC 

Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8IR1569 

SITE NAME: Fixed Railway Bridge over Sebastian River 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

MT01382

5-21-2013

6-24-2013

9

Moveable Bridge over St. Lucie River 

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/St. Lucie River

PALM CITY 1983

Stuart Martin

38S 41E 5

573294 3009190

1938

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

MT01382

1,270

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete encased piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Engineering

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1382 

SITE NAME: Moveable Bridge over St. Lucie River 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Moveable Bridge over St. Lucie River carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) 

over the St. Lucie River in Township 38 South, 41 East, Section 6 of the Palm City 

(1983) USGS quadrangle map in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. The bridge extends for 

approximately 1,270 feet and was constructed in 1938. The bridge is a moveable trunnion 

lift with beam span and through plate girder. The bridge is located at mile post 260.93. 

The bridge substructure consists of concrete encased piles. The deck is open and the 

bridge continues to be active. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge spans a great distance and is an example of a 

moveable trunnion lift bridge. Historic movable bridges, both railroad and vehicular 

types, are becoming increasingly rare bridge types. The bridge is significant as an 

excellent example of a moveable trunnion lift bridge that includes a beam span and 

through plate girder. The bridge retains a high degree of historic integrity and is 

considered to be individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register under 

Criterion C in the category of Engineering. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The 

Movable Bridge over the St. Lucie River is considered a contributing historic resource to 

a FEC Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1382 

SITE NAME: Moveable Bridge over St. Lucie River 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

MT01623

5-21-2013

6-24-2013

8

Fixed Bridge over Rio Waterway 

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Rio Waterway

PALM CITY 1983

Stuart St. Lucie

37S 41E 32

573708 3010664

1958

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

MT01623

105

18

Other

Other

Wood

Timber piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1623 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Rio Waterway 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) 

over the Rio Waterway in Township 37 South, Range 41 East, Section 32 of the Palm 

City (1983) USGA quadrangle map in the vicinity of Stuart, St. Lucie County, Florida. It 

is located at mile post 259.95. This bridge was constructed in 1958 and is a trestle bridge 

constructed of steel. The substructure of the bridge consists of timber piles. It is 

approximately 105 feet in total length and is approximately 18 feet in width. The bridge 

is currently no longer in use. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over the Rio Waterway is not significant in terms of 

engineering and is not considered individually eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge of the Rio Waterway is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC 

Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1623 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Rio Waterway 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

MT01624

5-21-2013

6-24-2013

10

Fixed Bridge over Salerno Waterway

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Salerno Waterway

ST. LUCIE INLET 1983

38S 41E 

579528 3002797

1958

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

MT01624

1 70

1 30 16

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete Steel

Concrete filled steel pipe piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1624 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Salerno Waterway 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over Salerno Waterway carries the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) 

over the Salerno Waterway in Township 38 South, Range 41 East of the St. Lucie Inlet 

(1983) in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. It is located at mile marker 266.86. The bridge 

was constructed in 1958 and is an example of a fixed steel trestle bridge. This bridge runs 

roughly north to south and spans for approximately 70 feet with a main span of 

approximately 30 feet. The deck width is approximately 16 feet and the bridge width is 

approximately16 feet in width. The bridge features a single set of standard railroad 

tracks. The deck is open and the bridge abutments are concrete. The substructure consists 

of timber piles. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over Salerno Waterway is not significant in terms of 

engineering and is not considered individually eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Salerno Waterway is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC 

Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1624 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Salerno Waterway 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

MT01625

5-22-2013

6-24-2013

12

Fixed Bridge over Manatee Creek 1

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Tributary of Manatee Creek 1

ST. LUCIE INLET 1983

Stuart Martin

38S 41E 30

579890 0300250

1962

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

MT01625

3 107

3 40 10

Other

Wood

Other

Concrete

Wood Steel

Steel and timber piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1625 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Manatee Creek 1 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 carries the Florida East Coast 

Railway (FEC) over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 in Township 38 South, Range 41 

East, Section 30 of the St. Lucie Inlet (1983) in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. It is 

located at mile post 267.34. The bridge was constructed in 1962 and is an example of a 

fixed steel trestle bridge. This bridge runs roughly north to south and spans for 

approximately 107 feet with a main span of approximately 40 feet. The deck width is 

approximately 10 feet and features a single set of standard railroad tracks. The bridge 

consists of three spans. The deck is open. The substructure consists of timber piles. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 is not 

significant in terms of engineering and is not considered individually eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 1 is considered a contributing historic 

resource to a FEC Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1625 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Manatee Creek 1 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

MT01626

5-22-2013

6-25-2013

11

Fixed Bridge over Manatee Creek 2

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Tributary over Manatee Creek 2

JUPITER 1983

Stuart Martin

38S 41E 30

580475 3002041

1962

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

MT01626

3 38

3 17 10

Other

Other

Wood

Concrete

Wood

Steel and timber piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1626 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 carries the Florida East Coast 

Railway (FEC) over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 in Township 38 South, Range 41 

East, Section 30 of the St. Lucie Inlet (1983) in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. It is 

located at mile post 267.70. The bridge was constructed in 1962 and is an example of a 

fixed steel trestle bridge. This bridge runs roughly north to south and spans for 

approximately 38 feet with a main span of approximately 17 feet. There are three spans in 

total. The deck width is approximately 10 feet and features a single set of standard 

railroad tracks. The deck is open. The substructure consists of timber piles. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 is not 

significant in terms of engineering and is not considered individually eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over the Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 is considered a contributing historic 

resource to a FEC Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8MT1626 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Tributary to Manatee Creek 2 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

PB16041

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

14

Moveable Bridge over Loxahatchee River

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

REC Railway/Loxahatchee River

JUPITER 1983

Jupiter Palm Beach

40S 43E 31

590250 2980899

1935

Previous railway bridge was at this location. 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

Masonry tender station at the NW side of the bridge

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

PB16041

588

30

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Aerial photographs

See continuations sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Engineering

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8PB16041 

SITE NAME: Moveable Bridge over Loxahatchee River 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The Moveable Bridge over the Loxahatchee River carries the Florida East Coast Railway 

(FEC) over the Loxahatchee in Township 40 South, 43 East, Section 31 of the Jupiter 

(1983) USGS quadrangle map in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. The bridge 

extends for approximately 588 feet, is approximately 30 feet in width, and was 

constructed in 1935. The bridge is a moveable trunnion lift with a deck plate girder and 

through plate girder. The bridge is located at mile post 282.58. A tender station is located 

at the NW side of the bridge which is constructed of concrete block and features a flat 

roof. This side of the bridge contains utilities. The bridge substructure consists of 

concrete piers. The deck is open and the bridge continues to be active. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a movable structure which spans a substantial 

waterway and is an example of a movable trunnion lift bridge with a deck plate girder 

and through plate girder. Historic movable bridges, both railroad and vehicular types, are 

becoming increasingly rare bridge types. The bridge is significant as an excellent 

example of a movable trunnion lift bridge which spans a substantial waterway. The 

bridge retains a high degree of historic integrity. This bridge is considered to be 

individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C in the category 

of Engineering. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The 

Movable Bridge over Loxahatchee River is considered a contributing historic resource to 

a FEC Railway linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8PB16041 

SITE NAME: Moveable Bridge over Loxahatchee River 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

SL03191

5-20-2013

6-24-2013

7

Fixed Bridge over Taylor Creek

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

FEC Railway/Taylor Creek

FORT PIERCE 1983

Fort Pierce St. Lucie

35S 40E 3

566202 3038252

1961

Unknown 

Railway bridge

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheets

N/A

N/A
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

SL03191

8 215

8 27

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete piles

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Community planning & development

Transportation

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8SL3191 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Taylor Creek 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

This Fixed Bridge over Taylor Creek carries the Florida East Coast Railway over the 

Taylor Creek in Township 35 South, Range 40 South, Section 3 of the Fort Pierce (1983) 

USGS quadrangle map in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. This fixed bridge was 

constructed in 1961 and runs north to south and is directly east of the Old Dixie 

Highway. It is further located at mile post 240.1. The bridge is a concrete and trestle 

beam span and is constructed of concrete. The bridge is approximately 215 feet in total 

length with a concrete deck and concrete piles. The bridge is approximately 27 feet in 

length. The bridge features eight spans a single standard set of railroad tracks over gravel 

ballast. At the center of the bridge is a steel beam span. Abutments are concrete and pier 

system consists of concrete piles. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure, and it exhibits a simple and 

utilitarian design. The Fixed Bridge over Taylor Creek is not significant in terms of 

engineering and is not considered individually eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

The FEC Railway retains historical importance due to its associations with development 

and transportation of the east coast of Florida. The FEC Railway is considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as a linear historic district under Criterion A in the 

categories of Transportation and Community Planning and Development. The bridge 

within the current APE is part of many that comprise the overall FEC system. The Fixed 

Bridge over Taylor Creek is considered a contributing historic resource to a FEC Railway 

linear historic district. 
PAGE 4 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8SL3191 

SITE NAME: Fixed Bridge over Taylor Creek 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


Page 1 

Original 

Update 

Site #8 ___________________ 

Field Date ________________ 

Form Date ________________ 

Recorder # ________________ 

FDOT Bridge # _____________

HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM 

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE 

Version 4.0 1/07 

Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Listing (DHR only) __________ 

Project Name ______________________________________________________________________ Survey # (DHR only) _______________ 

Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown

LOCATION & MAPPING 

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ____________________________________________________________________________________

USGS 7.5 Map Name_____________________________________ USGS Date ______ Plat or Other Map ___________________________

City/Town (within 3 miles) __________________________ In City Limits? yes no unknown County _____________________________ 

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: _____________________

Township _______ Range _______ Section _______ 1⁄4 section: NW SW SE NE 

Landgrant ______________________________________________ Tax Parcel #________________________________________________ 

UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing

Other Coordinates: X: _________________ Y: _________________ Coordinate System & Datum __________________________________

Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

HISTORY

Year Built ____________ approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later

Still in use? yes no restricted use (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ____________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned) ________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ownership history____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Designers/Engineers _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Builders/Contractors _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Text of Plaque or Inscription ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc.) _____________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Overall Bridge Design 1.___________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 

Overall Condition excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous

Style and Decorative Details __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tender Station Description____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY

 NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ______________ Init.________ 

 ______________ KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ______________ 

Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us

SL03192

5-21-2013

7-8-2013

15

Bridge over "C" Avenue

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail (Orlando to WPB)

"C" Avenue/FEC Railway

FORT PIERCE 1983

Fort Pierce St. Lucie

35S 40E 10

566582 3036555

1912

Unknown 

Railway

FEC Railway

Unknown 

Unknown 

N/A

See continuation sheet

Other

See continuation sheet

N/A

The superstructure of the bridge was reconstructed in 2003 but the substructure 

of the bridge dates to circa 1912.
Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 _______________

DESCRIPTION (continued) 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Spans: Number ________ Total Length(ft) _______ 

Main Spans: Number _______ Length(ft) ________ Width(ft) ________ Roadway width(ft) ________ 

Main Span Design ______________________________________ 

Main Span Materials 1._______________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Approach Spans: Number________ Length(ft)________ Width(ft)________ Roadway width(ft)________ 

Approach Span Design ____________________________________ 

Approach Span Materials 1._____________________________________ 2. ________________________________________ 

Deck Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. ______________________________________ 

SUBSTRUCTURE

Abutment Materials 1. __________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 

Abutment Description________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pier Materials 1. ___________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 

Pier Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

FDOT database search Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection 

HABS/HAER record search property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey 

FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research Public Lands Survey (DEP) cultural resource survey 

Other methods (specify)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) __________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE 

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information

Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information

Explanation of Evaluation (required, use separate sheet if needed) ___________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.)

1.___________________________________ 3.___________________________________ 5. ___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 4.___________________________________ 6. ___________________________________ 

DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents 

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 1)

Document type __________________________________________ Maintaining organization _________________________________________ 

Document description _______________________________________ File or accession #’s ___________________________________________ 2)

RECORDER INFORMATION 

Recorder Name _____________________________________________ Affiliation ______________________________________________ 

Recorder Contact Information __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 (address / phone / fax / e-mail) 

 USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED 

 PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE 

If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable).

Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. 

Required 

Attachments 

SL03192

2 44

2 25 15

Other

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete shafts

Aerial photographs

See continuation sheet

Field notes Janus Research

Field maps Janus Research

Janus Research Janus Research

1107 N. Ward St., Tampa FL 33607 / (813) 636-8200 / janus@janus-research.com
PAGE 3 SUPPLEMENT FOR SITE FORMS SITE 8SL3192 

SITE NAME: Bridge over “C” Avenue 

A. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SITE 

The fixed Bridge over “C” Avenue carries the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway over 

“C” Avenue is located in Township 38 South, Range 40 East, Section 10 of the Ft. Pierce 

(1983) USGS quadrangle map in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. The bridge runs 

north to south and is located at mile post 241.22. It was constructed circa 1912 but, the 

superstructure of the bridge was replaced in 2003. The substructure of the bridge dates to 

the 1912 bridge. The bridge is an example of a Concrete Double Box Beam bridge and is 

approximately 44 feet in length and approximately 15 feet in width. The bridge features 

two spans which are approximately 25 feet in length. The deck of the bridge is concrete 

and features a single standard railway track over gravel ballast. The substructure of the 

bridge consists of concrete shafts. 

B. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Railway magnate Henry M. Flagler’s East Coast Lines (ECL) mainline extended south 

from Jacksonville to Daytona in 1889. Flagler incorporated the Florida Coast & Gulf 

Railway Company in 1892 and extended his tracks south to New Smyrna. Flagler 

organized the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway to lengthen the 

tracks to Lake Worth that same year. The railway, following an inland route parallel to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, reached West Palm Beach in 1893, the same year Flagler filed 

the original plat for that town. In 1894, Flagler reorganized his east coast railway 

companies into the FEC Railway. The railway was soon carrying the bulk of building 

materials, tourists, workers, and settlers to the new towns along the corridor. Flagler 

extended the FEC Railway further south, reaching Miami in 1896. 

The evaluation of the bridges within the FEC Corridor Main Line ROW for this project is 

consistent with the methods developed with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO)/Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) for the 2010 FEC Amtrak 

Passenger Rail project. This bridge is a fixed structure and the superstructure of the 

bridge is non-historic. While the substructure of the bridge dates to circa 1912, the nonhistoric modern superstructure replacement affects the historic integrity of this resource. 

Due to this non-historic portion of the bridge it is ineligible for listing in the National 

Register individually or as part of a historic district. 

C. HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAST WORK AT SITE 

Mann, R. W. 

1983 Rails ‘Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank, California. 


APPENDIX D: 

AERIAL MAPPING SHOWING THE AIRPORT RAILWAY ALIGNMENT 

AND VMF APE AND THE LOCATIONS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES 

IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE AIRPORT RAILWAY ALIGNMENT 

AND VMF APE





APPENDIX E: 

AERIAL MAPPING SHOWING THE EAST-WEST CORRIDOR APE 

AND THE LOCATIONS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED 

WITHIN THE EAST-WEST CORRIDOR APE 







































APPENDIX F: 

AERIAL MAPPING SHOWING THE NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR APE, THE 

LOCATIONS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THE ROW 

(DIRECT APE), AND THE LOCATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL 

RESOURCES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ROW (INDIRECT APE)


































































































APPENDIX G: 

SURVEY LOG SHEETS
  

   	









 	
 
     	  


 
   


   

	   	 

  
	 !
  
	" 

#!"  $%
&" #!
' 

 	   	   

 

(	 
 
  	
  


































































 



























































































 



























































































 

(	 !	  	
 " 
  # $. 

























 %. 

























 

&. 

























 '. 

























 

(
	  









 )	
 )( 	#  *	 	 " #" (
" 	  #	 










 

(
	+#		, " ( " (
  . 	 
 	 "   (. -  
 	# 	 	


. 



























































































 



























































































 



























































































 

	 	# 
/	0 #   	 ) 




















































 

*##
		# 
/	01 23	




































 4 























+ 5	6 	7  	 " 	 		/	 
0 
" 

" 
 

 


$. 


















 %.


















 8. 


















 9.



















 

&. 


















 '.


















 :. 


















 ;.



















 

 		 			" 	 " 	3		 	
 # #
/	0

). 



































 23	. 





































 

!6	6<=
. 











































































(	 	# >	  








































  >	  4	
 












#   	 	  			#  	 	? )	 @1 	    	 
















&&

	 >  	 / #
  / 	A  	
  # 

$. 


























 %. 



























 8. 


























 

&. 


























 '. 



























 :. 


























 

,, $1&'"BBB  )6@ 	# > *	 	
  # 

$. ) 



























 @




 '. ) 




























 @




 

&. ) 



























 @




 8. ) 




























 @




 

%. ) 



























 @




 :. ) 




























 @




 

-"
& ! 	
 *
 

- #	 
/	01  








 < 








 )	
 !  #

 	 





 





 

.( 	#   	 !  








 

## 4		 #

 	 #	  /1 





 





# 
1 





0
	 






 

C*:<B::*B$B9 
	   
" 		# C	
 *	" , D
" 8BB 	 D		 " 

" 
	 %&%EE=B&8B 

	 ;8B=&'8=:''B" !F ;8B=&'8=:'%E" <
1 
G	..#
. 

CRAR of the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm 

Beach

Cultural Resource Assessment Report for the All Aboard Florida Passenger 

Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach

Janus Research

2013 120

Janus Research, 1107 N. Ward Street, Tampa FL 33607

Streelman, Amy and Pepe, James

Janus Research Tampa

Rail

Orlando

Cocoa

West Palm Beach

Cocoa Beach

SR 528

Airport

AAF – Operations LLC

2855 Le Jeune Road, 4th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Janus Research 8-30-2013

Orange

Brevard

Indian River

St. Lucie

Martin

Palm Beach

6-24-2013 8-16-2013 9,144

3
 0 	
 
   










(
"    

) 	#  0 

  
1 	
	
 
 	
6
 / 

   		 	 	(1. 


























	6+6	 






































































 



























































































 



























































































 


 	 0    
 	  	   /	



	 ! , D
 
( =   
	
 	 	  	 	 	  


	 		 ! , D
 
(=
 	

	= 		 / #
 	
  	  

 
 	  (
 >    < 
  /
  

 
   
	
 #	 (	+  
 		 

	 (1. 
















































































*	
	
 	 0    
 	  	   /	
 

40  # .1 	
	
 	 / . 

# 	

	" 		

 	
 =	 3 (
	0 	 
 &&  

# 	

	" 			

 / 	
  

	
 =$6'H		
  	 

	
 =$6;H    	 

	
  $6$:H	  

	
 =  	 
 $&  0	/

	 (1. 
















































































2	
6!
 	 0    
 	  	   /	
 

40  # .1 	
6
 	 / . 

(
  	
	 (	 / (	 

	
  	 	  	 /  	 

	 		
	
 	 	 		 0	/

	 (1. 
















































































	
 (	 3"		
 
	
" 
"
4 

 # <
? @ )	

	 	# 	
 *	 











 	 	# )/
 *	 











 

	
 *	  7 /  
 - 	 >  7 /	 I;H. ! 	
  # . 














 



























































































 



























































































 

./
 *	  7 ! 

 	
  	 ? >  7 /	 I;H. ! 	
  # . 
















 



























































































 



























































































 

 	 -1  
  	  
 <
	 *	 	 

555(6,#(-7 *))*2 
1) 1 ,(8 *(* 1. 21)118 1 ,9 70: *34555 

21 , 1.
8 21 , 1.
8 21 , 1.
8 

1	# *	1 ;9& 4!*> -5 $!%&  ! 4	 !		
 

, 	  4	
 */1 4*! 

) 	# 	1 !	
	
  C	
6!
    4

 	/ 4*! 		 *	 

 2/ <	*	 
= <	*	  
 *	 >(" C. 	 !
 	 

  *! , 21

C*:<B::*B$B9 
	   
" 		# C	
 *	" , D
" 8BB 	 D		 " 

" 
	 %&%EE=B&8B 

	 ;8B=&'8=:''B" !F ;8B=&'8=:'%E" <
1 
G	..#
. 

-	 	1 



























 	(
1 










































 

Airport Rail Alignment: Desktop analysis and Background Research. East-West 

Corridor: Pedestrian Survey, Shovel Testing, and Visual Inspection. North-South: Pedestrian Survey 

and Visual Inspection

Janus Library

Visual inspection

2 15

IR1049, MT1382

BR3058-BR3062/IR1569, 

BR3066-BR3068, MT1623-MT1626, PB16041, SL3191-SL3192 

APPENDIX H: 

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXTS EXCERPTED FROM 

PAST CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORTS WITHIN THE PROJECT APE 

THAT RECEIVED SHPO CONCURRENCE
Prehistoric and Historic Context from the 1998 CRAS of the 

GOAA’s South Terminal Complex EA in Orange County, Florida












Prehistoric and Historic Context from the 2005 CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E Study from 

SR 520 to the Port Canaveral Terminal B Interchange, Orange and Brevard Counties










































Prehistoric and Historic Context from the 1990 CRAS of the 

Proposed Magnolia Ranch Development Site, Orange County, Florida













Prehistoric and Historic Context from the 

2010 FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Project Volume I
5

CULTURE HISTORY 

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

Paleoindian Stage (12,000 to 7500 B.C.) 

Paleoindians were the first native inhabitants of Florida and are estimated to have 

entered the area approximately 10,000 BC. In the southeastern United States, the 

Paleoindian Stage lasts from approximately 10,000 to 7500 BC. The environment of 

Florida at that time was markedly different from the modern environment. Consequently, 

Paleoindian settlement and subsistence strategies are quite different from those used by 

later aboriginal inhabitants of Florida. Characteristics of the Paleoindian Stage include a 

nomadic settlement pattern, subsistence that included large-game mammals in addition to 

small-game hunting and gathering, and an absence of pottery. Paleoindian archaeological 

sites are generally defined solely on the basis of recovered lithic remains. The recovery 

of organic materials from paleo-components in waterlogged Paleoindian sites in Florida 

such as the Page/Ladson and the Little Salt Springs sites have greatly increased our 

understanding of this period; however, these sites are not very common and many 

questions remain about the Paleoindians. 

Some of the earliest evidence for human occupation in south Florida comes from 

two sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Springs and Warm Mineral Springs. These sites 

can be interpreted as sporadic hunting and gathering sites. The main area of human 

occupation would likely have occurred along what is now a submerged coastline (Griffin 

1988). The climate during this time, however, was vastly different than today. Too dry 

to even support scrub oak, the inland areas of South Florida may have been “an area of 

high winds and shifting dunes, uninviting to human habitation” (Griffin 1988:129). 

The environment in Florida during the Paleoindian Stage was so different because 

of lowered sea levels and a more arid climate. Pollen and charcoal samples recovered in 

cores taken from the bottoms of Lake Sheeler near Gainesville and Lake Tulane near 

Avon Park provide information on the local environment during the Paleoindian period 

(Watts and Hansen 1988). Between 13,000 and 10,000 BC, the dominant natural 

community was mesic broad-leafed forest. Water levels were as much as 26 meters 

below present. Warm summers and cool winters characterized the climate, and the 

frequency of natural fire was low. A significant result of lower sea levels was an 

increased land mass, about twice the size of present-day Florida. According to Milanich 

(1994:38) “about half of the land exposed 12,000 years ago is now inundated continental 

shelf.” 

Many modern inland rivers, lakes, springs, marshes, and wet prairies were almost 

nonexistent at this time. Fresh water was supplied by limestone-bottomed catchments 

such as water holes, lakes, and prairies, and very deep sinkholes. The presence of karst 

topography on which sinkholes formed is an indicator of potential Paleoindian 
6

settlements. Climatically, Florida was much cooler and drier than today. The resulting 

vegetation included plant species that thrive in dry areas, such as scrub oaks, pine, open 

grassy prairies, and savannas. 

The major settlement theory concerning Paleoindians was first put forth by Neill 

(1964), and later given substance through extensive recording and analysis of Paleoindian 

sites by Dunbar and Webb (Dunbar 1983, 1991; Dunbar et al. 1989; Webb et al. 1984). 

Neill’s “oasis” model is based on the fact that limited water sources existed at this time. 

As such, the few that did exist would have been crucial to animals in the area for drinking 

water. For Paleoindian populations, these watering holes would have provided easy and 

dependable access to game, as well as to fresh water for themselves. 

The oasis model has been substantiated by evidence of hunting and butchering 

activities near former water holes and other perched water sources, in the Tertiary 

limestone (karst) regions of Florida. Indeed, the majority of Suwannee and Clovis 

projectile points - the most diagnostic type of Paleoindian tools - have been found more 

commonly in Tertiary limestone regions (Dunbar and Waller 1983). Research by Carr 

(1986) has uncovered a filled-in solution hole and corresponding Early Archaic and 

Paleoindian site in southern Florida, the Cutler Fossil Site, which extends the area of 

settlement while still supporting the oasis model. This evidence also raises the possibility 

of more early sites along the Atlantic coastline (Griffin 1988). 

In general, Paleoindian settlement followed a seasonal model. Settlement was 

probably determined more by availability of lithic resources and water than by 

availability of floral and faunal resources. Over time, the distribution of both of these 

resource types influenced settlement patterns. By the Middle Paleoindian period, 

settlement may have been more territorial, perhaps as a result of decreased resources and 

concomitant increased population (Anderson 1996). 

Primarily through excavations at waterlogged sites in Florida, such as a paleocomponent at the Page/Ladson site in Jefferson County, the subsistence of Paleoindians 

has been reconstructed (Dunbar et al. 1989). Both extinct and modern species seem to 

have made up the diet. Most of the extinct species were large mammals such as sloth, 

tapir, horse, camelids, and mammoth. Some smaller extinct animals were also consumed. 

Modern species in the diet included deer, fish, turtles, shellfish, gopher tortoise, 

diamondback rattlesnake, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, muskrat, and wood ibis. In addition, 

panthers and frogs have been recovered from Paleoindian sites. 

The archaeological evidence suggests that Paleoindian cultures subsisted on both 

large and small game mammals. In addition to food, these animals were used for their 

furs and for tools. So far, there is little evidence of extensive reliance on coastal 

resources; however, coastal areas from the Paleoindian Stage would now be submerged. 

There have been Paleoindian artifacts recovered from oyster shell deposits along old river 

channels now submerged within Tampa Bay. Unfortunately, it is difficult to demonstrate 

that these represent culturally deposited middens given that the artifacts were found 

within private dredging spoil piles rather than controlled underwater archaeological 
7

excavation (Goodyear 1999; Goodyear and Warren 1972; Warren 1964). It is likely that 

Paleoindians utilized plant foods extensively as well. Meltzer (1988; Meltzer and Smith 

1986) argues for a generalized foraging subsistence strategy among Paleoindians within 

unglaciated eastern North America. His argument is based on ecology and ethnographic 

analogies in addition to comparison of Paleoindian tool kits and site distribution between 

major regions of North America. 

Paleoindian sites in Florida are generally located on acidic soils. Because of this, 

and their age, artifacts besides lithics are rarely recovered, unless the site is submerged. 

As a result, the Paleoindian tool kit is the most characteristic and identifiable clue to their 

culture. In general, most Paleoindian tools are made from stone and are unifacial. 

Because of the limits of a mobile lifestyle, these tools likely served multiple purposes. 

Lanceolate points are the most characteristic artifacts of the Paleoindian stage. 

These long, thin, bifacial blade-like points were sometimes hafted to ivory foreshafts, 

which were in turn attached to wooden spear shafts (Milanich 1994). Paleoindian hafted 

points and blades are characterized by basal thinning, which was sometimes achieved by 

removing a long flake from the base of the point upward. This practice is also referred to 

as fluting and was probably done in order to make the implement thinner at the haft and 

therefore easier to attach to a shaft or handle. Fluting was typically carried out early in 

the manufacture sequence as evidenced by flake scars that superimpose the flute scars 

(Goodyear and Warren 1972). While fluted points are typically associated with 

Paleoindian lithic technology, the practice is not commonly encountered on Paleoindian 

points recovered in Florida. 

The basal edges and lateral margins of Paleoindian lanceolate forms also typically 

exhibit abrading and smoothing. This was probably done to reduce the possibility of the 

sharp edges of the implement from cutting the lashing that held it in the haft (Powell 

1990). It should also be noted that much of the edge smoothing found on the basal areas 

of lithic tools could have also been caused by haft-wear. While basal grinding continued 

into the Early Archaic, this attribute is for the most part limited to the Paleoindian and 

Early Archaic periods. 

Of the lanceolate forms, the Suwannee point is the most widely recognized in 

Florida. As described by Bullen (1975:55), it is “slightly waisted” with a concave base, 

basal ears, and basal grinding on the bottom and waisted parts of the sides. The 

Suwannee is typically not fluted. Clovis points, indicative of Paleoindians throughout 

most of North America, are rarely recovered in Florida. 

In addition to the above points, other tools in the Paleoindian tool kit include 

cores, bifacial knives, and oval ground stone weights, or bolas, which are thought to have 

been attached by thongs and thrown to bring down game such as water birds (Neill 1971; 

Purdy 1981). Bone tools include the double-pointed point, which may have functioned as 

pins to hold back tissue while animals were butchered (Waller 1976). 
8

Toward the end of the Paleoindian Stage, large lanceolate points such as 

Suwannee disappear from the archaeological record and are replaced by smaller points 

such as the Greenbrier (Bullen 1975; Powell 1990). In addition, side-notched points such 

as Dalton and Hardaway appear. Such points may have replaced earlier lanceolate 

points, or they may have been in use concurrently. Side-notched points may have also 

functioned more as hafted knives rather than projectile points. In general, the smaller 

side-notched points are interpreted as a result of changes in environment and the 

subsequent shift from the hunting of large Pleistocene animals to smaller game such as 

deer. Towards this end, these smaller notched point forms were probably fitted to shafts 

that were propelled either by hand or with the aid of an atlatl. 

Archaic Stage (7500 to 500 B.C.) 

The Archaic Stage occurred from about 7500 to 500 BC and is associated with the 

Holocene geologic epoch. After the demise of some types of Pleistocene fauna, human 

subsistence strategies became more diverse and included new plant, animal, and aquatic 

species. These changes are seen in the way stone tools changed through time. Smaller 

side-notched spear points or knives replaced the large multifunctional lanceolate-shaped 

spear points used during the Paleoindian Stage. These smaller tools were designed to be 

thrown or launched with a spear thrower (atlatl), or hafted to a handle and used as a knife. 

These changes in the way people lived were due in large part to the physiographic 

and climatic changes occurring in Florida. As a result, subsistence and settlement 

patterns of the Archaic hunting and gathering groups also changed. People began to live 

in larger groups, use different types of stone tools, and inhabit more of what is now 

Florida. While the atlatl was developed during the Archaic, pottery and the bow and 

arrow had yet to be invented in North America. These two major innovations would 

come later during the Transitional period. It is important to note that these changes in 

material culture, social organization, and settlement and subsistence did not occur 

quickly. As Milanich (1994) points out, the changes that are visible in the archaeological 

record took place over many generations and were the result of shifting adaptations to a 

gradually changing environment. 

The Early Archaic (7500 to 5000 BC) represented a continuation of the 

Paleoindian occupation of Florida and occurred during a time of rising sea levels, a 

gradual warming trend with less arid conditions, and the spread of oak hardwood forests 

and hammocks. An obvious difference between the Paleoindian and Early Archaic is the 

shift from lanceolate blade-like points like Suwannee and Simpson points to smaller sidenotched and stemmed projectile points/knife forms such as the Bolen and Kirk clusters. 

Subsistence and settlement patterns also became more diversified during the Early 

Archaic. The shift in how people lived is reflected in the location of archaeological sites 

from this time period across the landscape. In general terms, subsistence and settlement 

patterns became more diversified during the Early Archaic, perhaps as a result of a shift 

in climate. 
9

While thermal alteration of chert occurred for the first time during this period, the 

practice was limited (Powell 1990). Alternate beveling of the cutting edges of stone tools 

was a common practice and is interpreted as evidence of resharpening of lateral margins 

by pressure flaking. Evidence suggests that the wooden shaft would typically be held in 

the left hand while the right side of the actual point was resharpened with the right hand. 

This process resulted in the removal of flakes in a downward motion from one lateral 

margin, then when the point was flipped over, flakes would be removed from the 

opposite lateral margin in the same fashion. This method of resharpening results in 

beveled margins that appear as unifacially resharpened edges that occur on opposite sides 

of the implement. 

Debate continues among southeastern archaeologists about whether to place early 

side-notched forms such as the Bolen in the Late Paleoindian or Early Archaic period. 

This is largely the result of conflicting evidence from archaeological sites in Florida and 

the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Milanich (1994) and Purdy (1981) both describe Bolens 

as Late Paleoindian period implements, and these points were recovered in association 

with lanceolate Suwannee and Simpson forms at the Harney Flats site in Hillsborough 

County (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). Other archaeologists, however, assign the Bolen 

to the Early Archaic (Goodyear 1982, 1999; Tesar 1994; Tuck 1974; Widmer 1988). 

Numerous small Early Archaic special activity and campsites have been located 

throughout the Central Florida Highlands (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). 

Tesar (1994) summarizes the Early Archaic as being characterized by relatively large 

base camps that were occupied at least semi-permanently and smaller seasonal camps and 

special use sites. These sites are often located near “ecotonal breaks” with dependable 

sources of freshwater nearby. Because these sites were typically in desirable locations, 

they were also sometimes reoccupied during later periods. 

Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts are sometimes recovered in association 

with each other; however, overall Early Archaic settlement patterns appear to be more 

widespread than those of the Paleoindian Stage. This expansion in settlement patterns is 

probably due in part to the warming trend and increase in precipitation that occurred at 

the close of the Pleistocene. Early Archaic people also began to utilize coastal and 

riverine environments more heavily. However, as Milanich (1994) points out, our lack of 

knowledge about the full range of Early Archaic tools (lithic and bone) stems from the 

scarcity of artifact collections from professionally excavated sites. 

As populations grew and the climate continued to become more like modern 

conditions, Archaic groups began to become more diversified. They slowly moved into 

previously unoccupied environmental niches and began producing stone tools that tended 

to be stemmed rather than notched. This diversification is seen in the types of stone tools 

produced, the exploitation of shellfish resources, and in the increase of archaeological 

sites that date to this time period. Archaeologists refer to this period as the Middle 

Archaic period (5500-3000 BC). 
10

The Middle Archaic experienced a change in climate from the previous period. 

The Middle Archaic experienced more moisture and access to more water resources. 

This encouraged an intrusion of mixed pine and oak into the hardwood forest. As 

conditions became wetter after 6500 BC (Watts and Hansen 1988), large river systems 

and wetlands developed and people began to exploit the resources associated with these 

habitats (mainly freshwater shellfish). This trend toward more sedentary occupations and 

more circumscribed territories continued into the Late Archaic, as conditions became 

more similar to the modern environment. Milanich (1994) points out that Middle Archaic 

sites are found in a variety of locations around Florida including wetland systems. In 

sum, Middle Archaic habitation sites increased in size and the density of artifacts, and for 

the first time include large shell middens. 

Lithic technology during the Middle Archaic is centered on the stemmed point. 

Few, if any Middle Archaic point types in Florida are side-notched. Stem configurations 

vary and some are no more than protrusions that extend from the basal region of the tool 

(e.g., Brier Creek or Morrow Mountain cluster). Other stem configurations are well 

formed and extend as obvious hafting attachments (e.g., the Newnan cluster). Alternate 

beveling of points was still practiced but to a lesser degree than during the Early Archaic 

period. 

While basal grinding is seldom found on Middle Archaic forms, the use of 

thermal alteration increased during this time. Heat-treated chert is commonplace at 

Middle Archaic sites in Florida. Although the thermal alteration of chert took place 

throughout the Archaic, this practice appears to have peaked during the Middle Archaic 

(Ste. Claire 1987). 

The Late Archaic (3000-500 BC) is characterized by the emergence of modern 

environmental conditions in Florida as major wetland systems developed (Watts and 

Hansen 1988:Table 3). Deposits from Lake Sheeler suggest that the dominant natural 

community was pine forests interspersed with swamps. Water levels were high and 

forest fires frequent during this time. 

Due to the increase in wetland environments, a settlement and subsistence shift 

occurred emphasizing a greater use of marine, riverine, and wetland resources. While 

people did not necessarily occupy different environmental zones during this time, the use 

of shellfish intensified. Large shell middens that date to the Late Archaic are found 

throughout the state. This is thought to be the result of a reliance on riverine and coastal 

wetland resources. Extensive middens dating to the Late Archaic are found along the 

coast and inland waterways in many coastal areas of Florida, including Flagler County 

and north, Charlotte Harbor and south, and along the inland waterways of the St. Johns 

River. Although not apparent, many coastal areas not mentioned likely share the number 

and occurrence of Late Archaic sites; however, these areas, such as Tampa Bay, are 

thought to be inundated by rising sea levels, or anthropomorphic ecological changes 

(Warren 1970; Warren and Bullen 1965). 
11

While many, if not most, of the same cultural traits were carried over from the 

Middle into the Late Archaic, certain developments separate the two periods. In 

particular, it is the use of steatite cooking vessels and the development of fiber-tempered 

pottery that are unique to the Late Archaic (Milanich 1994; Powell 1990). 

The earliest ceramics in Florida are distinctively tempered with plant fibers and 

were developed ca. 2000 BC. This technology may have arisen independently in Florida, 

or diffused south from Georgia or South Carolina where earlier dates for fiber-tempered 

pottery have been obtained. Regardless of their origin, the earliest fiber-tempered wares 

were undecorated. By 1650 BC decorative techniques were used in their manufacture, 

including geometric shapes and punctuations. It is the advent of this fiber-tempered 

pottery that is associated with the Orange period cultures (Milanich 1994). The Orange 

period lasted from approximately 1650 BC to 500 BC. 

 

The Orange ceramic tradition stretched along the Atlantic Coast between southern 

South Carolina and northern Florida. Orange Fiber-Tempered ceramics were first 

described by James Griffin (1945) and are considered among the earliest pottery types in 

North America. While fiber-tempered pottery is found throughout Florida, it is primarily 

recovered in eastern and central portions of the state. Orange Incised is recognizable by 

distinctive rectilinear incised and punctated designs that cover much of the exterior of the 

pot. Orange Plain is a variant that occurs on the same paste as Orange Incised; however, 

these wares are undecorated. 

This pottery was hypothesized to exhibit changes in design and motif that 

designate different subperiods. The later subperiod, 1250-1000 BC, represents the 

introduction of sand into the ceramics as temper, as well as the introduction of the coiling 

method of manufacturing clay pots (Sassaman 1993). However, more recent work by 

Sassaman has rejected the claim the Orange period can be further broken down into 

subperiods based on decorative techniques applied to the exterior of the fiber-tempered 

ceramics. Recently, Sassaman has dated soot from the exterior of incised pottery that has 

produced dates as early as those extant for plain ceramics. Thus a cultural and not 

chronological explanation is hypothesized for the difference in Orange Plain and Orange 

Incised wares. In essence, the pottery manufactured with incisions tends to be thick, 

spiculate, tall, and used over fires, while the plain wares tend to be thin, non-spiculate, 

and never used over fire (Sassaman 2003). Thus, it appears that the difference between 

incised fiber-tempered wares and plain fiber-tempered wares is that the incised wares are 

for cooking over open flame, while the plain are not. 

Another early fiber-tempered ceramic culture is hypothesized for the area that 

extends from the Gulf coast to the Orange series on the eastern coast. Called the 

Norwood culture, more resent research questions the necessity or validity of separating 

the fiber-tempered ceramic period into two cultures (Milanich 1994). 

As the Late Archaic period progressed, more and more sand was added as a 

tempering agent for the clay used to make pottery. Eventually, this technique replaced 

the practice of using plant fibers as a tempering agent. Early sand and grit-tempered 
12

pottery in north Florida was produced by the Deptford culture. Another dominant pottery 

tradition is called St. Johns ware. St. Johns pottery relies on microscopic sponge 

spicules, or endoskeletons, as temper. Although some sand was added to this pottery, St. 

Johns ware lacks the fiber, sand, and grit temper that is typical of other prehistoric 

pottery. Previously this pottery tradition was believed to follow in sequence the Orange 

fiber-tempered pottery tradition. However, recent work by Sassaman (2003) provides 

evidence that the Orange pottery sequence should be revised. According to Sassaman, 

the Orange periods (1-4) can effectively be condensed into one period, Orange 1. Soot 

samples dated from the exterior of Orange Incised pottery believed to date to the Orange 

3 period have resulted in Orange 1 (4000-3650 radiocarbon years before present) period 

dates. Therefore the Orange 1 period also saw manufacture of incised as well as plain 

pottery, particularly in the middle St. Johns Valley and along the northeast coast of 

Florida. In addition, work by Cordell discussed by Sassaman (2003), also indicates the 

prevalence of speculate paste sherds, typical of the St. Johns manufacturing technique, 

present in Orange 1 period contexts. This evidence suggests that the advent of the St. 

Johns ceramic tradition occurred simultaneously with the very first pottery production 

during the Orange 1 period (ca. 4000 radiocarbon years before present) and extended 

beyond the Late Archaic period throughout the pre-contact period until the demise of the 

manufacturing culture. 

Late Archaic sites, mainly extensive Archaic shell middens, are present along the 

coast of southwest Florida. Excavations resulted in the identification of Late Archaic 

middens on Useppa Island and Horr’s Island in the 1980s (McMichael 1982). Marco 

Island also has several sites associated with the Late Archaic (Milanich 1994). The Late 

Archaic populations utilized all available resources along the coastline of Florida. The 

efficiency with which food was collected along the coast and other waterways allowed 

the populations of this period to become sedentary, and thus encouraging their social and 

cultural systems to become elaborated. By approximately 3000 BC it is believed that 

coastal and riverine cultures were characterized by “greater cultural complexity, 

sedentism, and regionalization.” (Milanich 1994:104). 

The general trend of the Late Archaic can be summarized as a shift towards large 

relatively permanent villages. Regional cultures continued to develop during this time 

and several examples of localized Late Archaic groups include Mount Taylor and Orange 

in northeast and east Florida, and the Elliot’s Point Complex in northwest Florida. 

Woodland Stage (500 B.C. to A.D. 1765) 

 Following the Late Archaic period, cultures associated with the Woodland Stage 

emerged. Woodland cultures can be briefly described as developing more regionalization than 

those during the preceding Archaic Stage. The current project area runs along the east coast of 

Florida and passes through two distinct archaeological regions, as described by archaeologists 

(Milanich 1994). These two archaeological regions are the East and Central and the Glades 

regions (Figure 2). 
13

Figure 2. Post-500 B.C. archaeological regions of Florida (from Milanich 1994:xix). 

East and Central Florida Region. The East and Central archaeological region of 

Florida is one of the largest archaeological regions found in the state. Although the area 

encompasses land that stretches from the eastern boundary with northern Georgia to the 

northern boundary of the Kissimmee River drainage (approximately the southern Indian 

River County boundary) and from the east coast of Florida to within 30 miles of Tampa 

Bay, the archaeological region is not a reflection of a unified culture area. Rather, it is an 

area that encompasses at least four distinct culture variations. Seven cultural regions 

border the extensive East and Central archaeological region creating distinct cultural 

areas within the region based on the mixing of archaeological traditions with neighboring 

culture areas. The primary trait by which this archaeological region is distinguished is 

the presence of St. Johns pottery. The four cultural areas found within the East and 

Central archaeological region include the St. Johns Heartland, Northeast Coastal Florida, 

Indian River Area, and the Central Lakes District (Russo 1992). The current project area 

exists within two of these, the St. Johns Heartland and the Indian River Area. 

These four cultural areas have the presence of St. Johns pottery in common. The 

chronology for St. Johns pottery is divided into two parts, St. Johns I (500 B.C.–A.D. 

800) and St. Johns II (A.D. 800-1565). The inception of the St. Johns II period is marked 
14

by the production of St. Johns Check-stamped, and the terminus of this period is marked 

by the arrival of the Spanish. The two St. Johns periods are further subdivided based on 

adoption of incising techniques, red-slipping and the presence of trade wares. 

St. Johns Heartland. The St. Johns Heartland encompasses an area that 

stretches from the mouth of the St. Johns River on the Atlantic Coast west to Lake 

Harney and south to the Indian River. The culture along this thin strip of area along the 

Atlantic Coast was initially believed to have arisen out of the earlier Late Archaic Orange 

culture period (Bullen 1972; Rouse 1951). With Sassaman’s (2003) work indicating that 

St. Johns wares may occur simultaneously with Orange fiber or semi-fiber tempered 

wares, this may indicate that the St. Johns wares occurred earlier than previously 

believed. Regardless, the St. Johns wares show a continuity of design similar to the 

Orange incised wares. In general, St. Johns plain wares are common both temporally and 

spatially. Linear incisions are common in the early and late types. Dunns Creek Red is a 

red-filmed St. Johns type. Exotic wares are also located within burial contexts, these 

types include Deptford, Glades, Belle Glade, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, Weeden 

Island, Savannah Cord Marked, Safety Harbor, and Fort Walton types. 

Few if any chert outcroppings are located along this portion of the Atlantic coast, 

as a result, there are fewer lithic materials, resulting in a lack of a formal projectile point 

chronology for the area. Although chert is rare, some soft limestone is common, and 

limestone abraders are found throughout the area. In addition exotic steatite vessels are 

found in mortuary contexts. Due to the paucity of lithic material, coastal St. Johns 

peoples used bone and shell for tool and ornamental manufacture. Shellfish species were 

often used to create adzes, dippers cups, and terrestrial faunal bones were used for tools 

such as awls and ornamental objects such as pins and beads. The settlement patterns of 

the area include shell middens and mounds along the coast and less dense inland artifact 

scatters. 

Indian River Area. Goggin (1952) and Rouse (1951) believed that the Indian 

River area, from its northern headwaters to its southern boundary near the St. Lucie Inlet, 

was remarkably different than the St. Johns heartland area found to the north. The lack of 

corn production and different social linguistic and religious customs were observed by 

the initial Spanish observers who came to the area. Archaeologically, this area is 

differentiated by an increase in sand-tempered pottery. Rouse (1951) gave this area a 

slightly different chronology termed Malabar and separated this chronology into two 

parts, Malabar I and Malabar II, based on similar variations as those found within the St. 

Johns heartland area. Due to the lack of differentiation found archaeologically, many 

archaeologists did not follow Rouse’s example and grouped this area as a variation of the 

St. Johns culture region. In general differences extend to burial practices and site types. 

Although snails are the common midden type located in the heartland, mussels are the 

preferred shellfish midden located in the Indian River area. In addition, evidence 

suggests (Russo 1986) that the Indian River people inhabited inland areas during winter 

months, unlike those groups located to the north. 
15

Glades Region. The Glades region includes coastal portions of St. Lucie, 

Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties and most of Collier 

County. This area is bordered by the St. Johns/Malabar cultures to the northeast and the 

Caloosahatchee culture to the northwest. The Okeechobee Basin culture is present to the 

northwest and north-central of the Glades area, but is excluded from the Glades region. 

Researchers have divided the Glades area into differing culture regions. In general the 

Glades region can be divided into three geographical districts or culture areas, the East 

Okeechobee, the Ten Thousand Islands, and the Everglades. The current project area lies 

within the Everglades culture area. 

 The most dominant feature of the Glades region is the Everglades. The large 

marsh is mostly covered by sawgrass punctuated by higher ground or tree islands, called 

hammocks. The Big Cypress Swamp is another major physiographic and environmental 

area in the Glades regions. Coastal areas are dominated by estuaries, and saltwater 

marshes, and mangroves (Kozuch 1992). 

 Because the underlying rock of the area is porous limestone, and no chert 

outcrops exist in this region, lithic artifacts are fairly rare, in particular on the southeast 

coast. If chert is recovered from the Glades area, it is likely to have been imported, or 

traded from another area, such as the Tampa Bay area, where chert outcrops are 

numerous. Although chert artifacts are rare, limestone artifacts due exist, such as 

plummets, grooved pebbles, net sinkers, and hammerstones. Shell an abundant resource 

along the coast, is often even more dominant than limestone in the artifact assemblages 

from the area. The heavy stones such as Busycon, Strombus, and Pleuroploca (whelks 

and conchs) were the most common types to be used for the manufacture of picks, adzes, 

celts, chisels, awles, gouges, knives, scrapers, cups, saucers, dippers, and spoons. 

Smaller bivalves are thought to be used for smaller items such as net weights, sinkers, 

and on occasion, beads (Kozuch 1992). Bone tools, often made of deer bone or antler, 

were also common in inland sites. It is also known that prehistoric people used wood and 

plant fibers for cordage and decorative items through excavations at the Key Marco site 

where preservation in anaerobic muck was excellent. 

 As would be expected, settlement and subsistence had much to do with the local 

environment of the area. The coastal areas were capable of sustaining large populations 

with the abundant harvesting of shellfish, resulting in large shell middens at habitations 

sites along the coast. Inland sites are typically exhibited as earthen middens and indicate 

a subsistence heavily based on fish, mammals and reptiles, readily available in the inland 

environments. 

 The Glades area is divided into three temporal periods, with subsequent 

subperiods, including the Glades I (early and late), Glades II (a, b, and c) and Glades III 

(a and b). These periods and subperiods are based on ceramic seriation and the 

presence/absence of certain decorated ceramic wares. 

Beginning with Glades I early (500 BC – AD 500), this period is marked by the 

predominance of pottery types that are undecorated, by Glades I late (AD 500-750), 
16

decorative wares appear and include types such as Sanibel incised, Cane Patch incised 

and Fort Drum incised. Glades II a (AD 750-900) also is marked by incised wares such 

as Key Largo incised, Opa Locka incised, and Miami incised. Glades II b (AD 900-

1100) is marked by the appearance of Matecumbe incised and vessel shapes are 

predominantly bowl-types. Glades II c (AD 1100-1200) exhibits a decrease in 

decoration, although some decorative wares exist, such as Plantation Pinched wares. 

Glades III a (AD 1200-1400) exhibit decorative wares such as Surfside Incised, Safety 

Harbor incised, and St. Johns Check Stamped. Glades III b (AD 1400-1513) marks a 

time when there are few decorated ceramics, with the exception of lightly decorated 

Glades tooled rims. Throughout all periods the pervasive sand-tempered plain is also 

present (Griffin 1988; Milanich 1994). 

HISTORIC CONTEXT

 At the time of the arrival of the first Europeans, the east coast of Florida was 

populated by several different Native American groups. The Indians living in 

northeastern Florida along the St. Johns River were Timucua, that is, they spoke a dialect 

of the language the Spaniards called Timucua. Although Timucuan groups had spread 

across northern Florida and into southern Georgia, they were not a unified group. Various 

dialects represent different cultures that probably never considered themselves a single 

entity (Milanich 1995). These people lived at least some of the time in medium-sized 

sedentary villages and their subsistence relied, at least in part, on agriculture. Cultivated 

products included corn, beans, and squash. The Indians also relied heavily on marine life 

and shellfish. Life continued in a fashion very similar to the previous St. Johns II period 

with a gradual population loss and cultural changes caused by increasing contact with 

Europeans and European disease. 

 The Indian River area at this time was occupied by the Ais, and the area 

immediately south of this was occupied by the related Jeaga. There is ethnohistoric 

evidence to suggest a vassal or similar type relationship between the cacique (chief) of 

the Jeaga and the Ais (Andrews and Andrews 1985). The Ais and Jeaga subsisted 

primarily by hunting, fishing, and gathering, with a large portion of their diet composed 

of oysters and other shellfish, fish, turtles, palm berries, and sea grapes. The Ais 

population density was greatest along the estuaries, rather than on the beaches (Dickel 

1992). Similar to the Calusa of southwestern Florida, the Ais had a complex 

sociopolitical system with a paramount chief, who held power over local village chiefs. 

Tribal alliances were often cemented by rather tenuous elite marriages, and as 

marriages dissolved, alliances ceased as well. Rouse (1951) asserts that the Jeaga and 

the Ais are linguistically linked to the Calusa, and share more in common with their south 

Florida neighbors than the Timicuan tribes to the north. “Their culture was of the south 

Florida type, and their language belonged to the Calusa group. Politically too, their 

friendly relationships were almost entirely to the south of them” (Rouse 1951:34). 

Unlike their more northerly neighbors, the Jeaga and the Ais did not engage in 

horticulture. In addition, Rouse (1951) asserts that the Ais were not on good terms with 

their Timicuan neighbors to the north, nor their Mayami neighbors to the west. 
17

 The first recorded European to reach Florida was Juan Ponce de Leon who landed 

on the east coast near St. Augustine in 1513. Panfilo de Narvaez followed him in 1528, 

landing near Tampa Bay and trekking into the interior of Florida reaching the Apalachee 

region of west Florida. Hernando de Soto landed near Tampa Bay in 1539 and proceeded 

to march inland through Florida in search of gold. The de Soto trail, as reconstructed, 

headed north from the village of Ocale (approximately 25 miles southwest of present day 

Ocala) to the west of Gainesville, in the area of the San Felasco Hammock that was 

inhabited by Potano and Utina bands of Timucua Indians. From there, de Soto continued 

north into Georgia (Milanich and Hudson 1993). 

 In 1522 a flota, or convoy system, had been implemented to provide protection 

for ships bound to Spain from the colonies. By this time the sailing directions provided 

for the flota to follow the Gulf Stream northward, along the east coast of Florida, until 

turning east off the Carolinas and following the trade winds past Bermuda and onward to 

Spain. Although there had been previous attempts by the Spanish to establish colonies on 

the mainland, events in Europe were soon to provide an impetus for another, more 

determined effort to secure a base in Florida. 

 With the Protestant Reformation came the opportunity for non-Catholic interests 

to ignore the papal bulls of demarcation that had created a virtual Spanish monopoly in 

the Caribbean basin. Circumvention of these papal ordinances provided non-Catholic 

countries, such as England, Holland, and France, with a legal basis for moving into areas 

that heretofore had been the sole province of the Spanish Crown. These incursions 

threatened the maritime trade between Spain and her colonies, both by direct intervention 

and economic competition. 

 On May 1, 1562 French Protestants under the command of Jean Ribault found and 

explored a large river in the northern reaches of the Florida peninsula. Within a year the 

French successfully established Fort Caroline on what is today the St. Johns River, which 

they called the River of May. In 1564 an additional force of three hundred French 

Protestants joined the garrison already in place, and a foothold for the French was 

secured on the Florida mainland. This French presence created a strong threat to the 

Spanish shipping that had to follow the Gulf Stream and pass through the Bahamas 

Channel between the mainland and the Bahamas Islands (Franklin and Morris 1996). 

 The colony suffered from lack of supplies and poor relations with the local 

Indians. Jean Ribault was sent from France with supplies and a contingent of 600 

soldiers and settlers to reinforce the fort (Tebeau 1971). The French and Spanish were in 

direct competition for Florida and the Spanish king, Phillip II, sent Admiral Pedro 

Menendez de Aviles to destroy Fort Caroline and reclaim the land for Spain. 

 Menendez established a base to the south of St. Augustine and continued to 

periodically attack the French. In response, Ribault formulated a plan to attack St. 

Augustine from the sea and organized a group of French ships to carry this out. The 

ships ran aground during a hurricane at Matanzas Inlet to the south of St. Augustine. 

With 500 soldiers, Menendez took advantage of the loss of the French fleet and attacked 
18

the poorly defended colony at Fort Caroline on September 20, 1565. Almost all of the 

settlers were massacred except for approximately 60 women and children who were 

captured (Gannon 2003). About fifty other settlers escaped Menendez and sailed for 

France. Fort Caroline was claimed by the Spanish and renamed San Mateo (Milanich 

and Hudson 1993). 

 Menendez then turned south and engaged the shipwrecked French fleet, Ribault 

among them, at Matanzas Inlet. The French surrendered, but Menendez, believing they 

were heretics and faced with the problem of caring for about 350 prisoners, killed all but 

those professing to be Catholic or a musician. To secure the northern boundaries of 

Spanish La Florida against any further invasions from other colonial powers, a small 

town was settled at Santa Elena on the coast of South Carolina. The St. Augustine 

settlement was maintained and a string of Spanish missions were established west across 

Florida towards Tallahassee (Tebeau 1971). 

 Menendez went on to found the city of St. Augustine in 1565. Chosen for its 

strategic location, St. Augustine existed as a military outpost and as a base for 

missionaries, who worked at converting the native population to Catholicism. Military 

operations took place in the form of land patrols to keep other colonial powers (such as 

France and Britain) from infringing on the Spanish claim. Spanish military ships also 

used St. Augustine as a base of operations for protecting the gold-laden ships that passed 

through the Florida Straits en route to Spain from Mexico and South America. 

 In an effort to convert the local Indians and recruit Native American labors for 

Spanish projects such as the construction of the fort in St. Augustine, Menedez instituted 

a mission system across north Florida in 1565 (Hann 1996; Milanich and Hudson 1993). 

Timucuan villages were targeted for the construction of missions and accounts of both 

mission and Indian life were included in Spanish documents throughout the seventeenth 

century. These accounts mention skirmishes between native groups and the Spanish, 

disease epidemics, and the decline of indigenous populations (Buchholz 1929; Gannon 

1965; Johnson 1991; Milanich and Hudson 1993). 

 In 1586, Sir Francis Drake, with 2,000 men and 23 heavy war ships, overpowered 

the eighty armed Spanish men defending the Spanish city via a hastily erected wooden 

fort, located at the site of the Castillo de San Marcos. Drake looted the town and ordered 

it burned. During the reconstruction of St. Augustine, the Castillo de San Marcos was 

reinforced. As the number of Timucuan Indians living in this region of Florida had 

sharply declined since the arrival of the Spanish, Guale and Yamassee Indians from the 

Georgia coast and Apalachee Indians from western Florida began to move into the area 

around St. Augustine during the 1600s. The efforts to Christianize the Timucua, Guale, 

and Apalachee Indians increased through the mission system. By 1684 the English 

settled in Charleston, South Carolina, and influenced the Indians to overthrow the 

Spanish in Florida (Tebeau 1971). 

In their effort to take the town of St. Augustine, the English destroyed the missions north 

of the city in 1702, but failed to take the stone fort. Like Drake, the English burned St. 
19

Augustine. St. Augustine was rebuilt, however, and by 1708 it was the only remaining 

Spanish mission in Florida. 

 After continual struggle for control of the coast, Spain ceded all of Florida to 

England in the Treaty of Paris dated 1763. The British split Florida into two parts: East 

Florida, with its capital in St. Augustine, and West Florida, with its capital at Pensacola. 

While the Spanish cession caused an immediate rush from Carolina for land to use for 

rice cultivation in the areas above the St. Mary's, the area south of the St. Mary's was for 

the most part ignored, since it was characterized as "dismal swamp" (Chesnutt 1978:6). 

Yet the area was full of timber to be harvested and cultivated for the production of naval 

stores. 

 The American Colonies declared their independence from British rule in 1776. 

According to Coomes (1975), Georgia and South Carolina required their citizens to take a 

strict oath of loyalty to the Revolutionary cause, and this forced loyalists to seek shelter 

in the Province of East Florida. 

 Commerce with Charleston and other British colonies also quickly increased as 

the trade restrictions that the Spanish Crown had imposed on the colony were removed 

with the arrival of the British. A greater emphasis was soon placed on the export of naval 

stores and ships timbers, and the Royal Navy's demand for more vessels was a constant 

consideration as well. Even the coming of the American Revolution did little to impact 

the export of these products, and in 1782 alone over 20,000 barrels of turpentine were 

exported (Fairbanks 1975). 

 The native population had been ravaged by war and disease, which had left much of 

Florida uninhabited by Native Americans by ca. 1750. This void allowed the Creeks 

from Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas to migrate into Florida. In 1765, these 

migrating Indians were referred to with the Spanish term cimarrone, or "wild" and 

"runaway", in the field notes accompanying de Brahm's 1765 map of Florida. The term 

"seminole" is thought to have derived from this reference (Fernald and Purdum 1992). 

 

 The Seminoles prospered in Florida raising cattle and growing their traditional 

crops of corn, beans, squash, and tobacco, as well as crops such as sweet potatoes and 

melons borrowed from the Spaniards (Fairbanks 1973). The Seminoles established 

permanent towns from the Apalachicola River to the St. Johns River. Instead of the 

mission system of the Spanish, the British set up several trading posts in Florida. 

Seminoles traded deer, wild cattle, and furs in exchange for guns, iron tools, cloth, and a 

variety of ornamental jewelry (Fairbanks 1973). During this time, runaway black slaves 

from the Carolina colonies fled to Florida and sought refuge either in a black colony 

outside St. Augustine, where they were to become farmers and, occasionally, soldiers, or 

in the Seminole settlements in the interior of the colony. The Seminoles helped the 

runaways form their own settlements, and often prevented slave-catchers from capturing 

them (Fairbanks 1973). 
20

 The Spanish continued the British system of controlling the Seminoles through 

trade. Rum became a common trade good and credit was extended to the Seminoles, who 

were unable to produce enough skins to balance their accounts. Seminole land was often 

accepted as payment (Fairbanks 1973). 

 At the Revolutionary War's end, the British defeat at the hands of the American 

colonists saw a new Treaty of Paris, which returned sovereignty of Florida to the Spanish 

and began the Second Spanish Period. With the return of the Spanish to East Florida 

came the attempt to reassert Spanish religious and cultural dominance in the region, 

which had adopted a multi-cultural character under British rule. Although St. Augustine 

returned to its position of a Spanish trade entrypoint, it was no longer an essential 

military position guarding the route of Spanish shipping returning to the Old World. 

Trade also took on a more international aspect, with more vessels entering the harbor 

under foreign flags than under the flag of Spain (Griffin 1983). The influx of foreign 

nationals into the north Florida region likewise contributed to the continued deterioration 

of Spanish dominance in the area, along with a growing sentiment that the new United 

States should control Florida (Franklin and Morris 1996). 

 Indian refugees from the Creek War of 1814 fled to Florida and almost doubled 

the Seminole population. The new Seminoles were mostly Upper Creeks, originating 

from central Alabama, and spoke the Muskogean language. The Florida Seminoles spoke 

the Mikasuki language (Fairbanks 1973). Border conflicts between the Seminole and 

white settlers increased and culminated in 1817 with the First Seminole War. General 

Andrew Jackson, known to the Seminoles as Sharp Knife, invaded Seminole territory 

killing Indians and burning houses. This military effort was largely responsible for 

Florida becoming a United States Territory in 1819 with Andrew Jackson as a military 

governor. Florida became an U.S. territory in 1821. Landowners who had been granted 

land under Spanish rule were permitted to keep their land. Governor Jackson organized 

the Territory of Florida into two counties, Escambia and St. Johns, with the legislative 

council meeting in Pensacola in 1822, and in St. Augustine in 1823 (Tebeau 1971). The 

First Seminole War ended with the Treaty of Moultree Creek in 1823, which stipulated 

that the Seminoles would move to a reservation in the middle of Florida. 

 During the territorial period, methods of transportation to connect the coasts to the 

interior became a priority. In addition to road improvement and new road construction, 

increased travel up inland rivers through the harness of steam power, and the constant 

consideration of a canal to be cut through the state, rail routes began to crisscross the 

state of Florida. In 1845 Florida became a state, though by 1861 it would again leave the 

Union. 

 The Payne's Landing Treaty of 1832 required the Seminoles to relinquish their 

land within three years and move onto reservations in the western United States. The 

Seminole leader Osceola killed Chief Charley Emathla who had agreed to move his town 

to Oklahoma. When the three years had expired, 180 Seminoles attacked a column of 

108 men led by Major Francis Dade. The attack took place near the Withlacoochee River 

near present-day Bushnell while Dade and his men were en route from Ft. Brooke 
21

(present-day Tampa) to Ft. King (near present-day Ocala). The Seminoles left only three 

men alive at the battle and they died within a matter of weeks from their wounds 

(Chamberlin 1995). With minimal Seminole casualties, the raid was an overwhelming 

victory. The battle demonstrated to the U.S. Army that the Seminole, when organized, 

represented a considerable military force. In addition, the victory resulted in the capture 

of over one hundred U.S. Army muskets by the Seminole. 

 On the same day as the attack on Dade, Osceola led an assault on Fort King. 

These incidents sparked the Second Seminole War. The federal forces were confused by 

the Seminole raid-and-run tactics and were unfamiliar with the wooded and swampy 

terrain. The war spread to the south, in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee, in the 

Everglades. In 1837, Osceola was taken prisoner under a white truce flag and brought to 

Fort Marion (Castillo de San Marcos) in St. Augustine. His fellow Seminole prisoners 

starved themselves until they were able to escape through their cell windows. Osceola, 

however, contracted malaria and later died in Fort Moultree, South Carolina. His head 

was removed prior to the burial of his body by the attending physician, Dr. Frederick 

Weeden, and was later brought back to St. Augustine as a personal souvenir (Nolan 

1995). The war continued until 1842, when several hundred Seminoles were shipped to 

the western territories. In total, the Second Seminole War cost the United States an 

estimated $40,000,000 and the lives of 1,500 troops. 

 The Third and final Seminole War erupted in 1849 when an Everglades army 

surveying party led by Lieutenant Hartsuff happened upon Chief Bowlegs= field of corn, 

beans, pumpkins, and bananas. The surveyors destroyed the plot and kicked Bowlegs to 

the ground. The next day Bowlegs returned with his men and severely wounded the 

surveyors in a skirmish. Because of these events, the Third Seminole War is also referred 

to as Billy Bowleg=s war. During this period forts were reactivated and war was again 

declared. By 1858, after a series of sporadic skirmishes, the Third Seminole War ended 

with the shipment of 123 Seminoles to Oklahoma. However, 100-300 Seminoles who 

evaded capture remained in the Everglades (Fernald and Purdum 1992). The present-day 

Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes of Florida and the Independent Seminole of Florida are 

direct descendants of the Seminole that could not be forcibly removed during the 

Seminole Wars. As a result of forced removal, Seminole Indians also now live in Texas 

and Oklahoma. 

 During the Civil War, Florida had joined the Confederate States of America. 

Small militia bands formed in 1861 when Florida seceded from the Union. Many locals 

joined the Confederate Army and later spent their time flushing out Union supporters. 

Florida's primary role in the Civil War was to provide supplies and troops to the 

Confederacy. In a blockaded south where supplies were difficult to obtain, the 

Confederate Impressment Act collected food supplies including beef, pork, rice and 

potatoes from Floridians that were stored in warehouse depots throughout the state. Few 

significant battles were fought within the state. The west coast of Florida was a major 

salt producing area throughout the south during the War Between the States (Dayton 

1986). 
22

 In early 1862 Federal forces began to occupy Florida. Sailors and marines from 

the U.S.S. Hatteras landed at Cedar Key, destroying the wharf and depot. Cedar Key was 

virtually unprotected since Confederate troops had been sent along the railroad to protect 

Fernandina. Yet when Federal troops reached Amelia Island on March 3, they found the 

Confederates leaving, and simply took possession of Fort Clinch, St. Mary's, and 

Cumberland Island (Tebeau 1971). 

 Coastal communities in Florida continued to be raided and occupied at will by 

Union forces. Fortunately there were no military objectives in the interior to draw 

attention, and no invasion occurred until 1864 (Tebeau 1971). Jacksonville was invaded 

and abandoned four separate times. In April of 1862, as the Confederates withdrew after 

the first invasion, they destroyed eight of their own sawmills, along with four million 

board feet of lumber, an iron foundry, and an ironworks. Retreating Confederate forces 

followed the tracks inland towards Baldwin, nineteen miles west of Jacksonville, where 

three railway lines converged. To prevent it falling into enemy hands, the Confederate 

troops pulled up several miles of railroad track along the route (Tebeau 1971). 

 During the fourth invasion, Union troops again entered Jacksonville and moved 

towards Baldwin along the rail track route. Confederate forces withdrew along the track 

of the advance, and finally a definitive battle was fought at Olustee. The Confederate 

troops retained control of Florida's interior. 

 After the Civil War, reconstruction proceeded in Florida at a decidedly slow pace, 

but by the end of the nineteenth century, Florida's population had increased to 

approximately 400,000 people (Marth and Marth 1988). This was due to homesteading 

acts as well as the citrus, naval stores, lumber, cattle, phosphate, and tourist industries. 

Major railroads were constructed throughout the state during this time. The railroads 

built by Henry Plant, William Chipley, and Henry Flagler opened up previously 

undeveloped areas of the state. Freezing temperatures in northern parts of Florida 

encouraged the development of the citrus industry in south Florida, and growers began 

the long process of converting swampland to farmland (Gannon 2003). 

 Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward brought Progressive politics to Florida at 

the turn of the century, calling for improved education, health standards, natural resource 

protection, development of south Florida, and prison reform, among other issues. Social 

change occurred rapidly in Florida in the early twentieth century. Electrical and 

telephone service reached many parts of the state, and commercial goods were more 

accessible (Gannon 2003). The early twentieth century also saw the beginning of 

prohibition. Florida's geographical location and miles of coastline made it very attractive 

to smugglers bringing liquor from the Bahamas and other Caribbean islands (Gannon 

1996). 

 For Florida, the 1920s were a time of boom and bust, both fueled by real estate 

and land development. Swelling property prices and land values fed booms in 

transportation, construction, and banking. The state became a desirable vacation and 

retirement destination. In 1926, Florida's economy collapsed and bank failures became 
23

daily occurrences. Two major hurricanes in 1926 and 1928 and the arrival of the 

Mediterranean fruit fly in 1929 complicated matters. Despite the blow to the citrus 

industry, agriculture (fruit and truck farming, cotton, corn, and cattle) remained the 

economic mainstay of the state. Although real estate and tourism rebounded slightly 

towards the end of the decade, the forward momentum was halted by the stock market 

crash of 1929 (Gannon 1996). 

 In sharp contrast to the glamorous lifestyles of the wealthy on Florida's coasts, 

African-American life in Florida for the first half of the twentieth century was defined by 

political and social repression. Blacks were kept from voting by the Poll Tax and allwhite primaries. The turpentine industry imposed a type of forced labor on many black 

workers (Gannon 2003). 

 New Deal politics and tourism dollars helped during the depression of the 1930s, 

yet Florida's economy benefited from the onset of World War II. Its temperate climate 

led to its extensive use for training troops, and it was not unheard of to spot German 

submarines off the Atlantic coast. The development of the highway system that 

accompanied this military growth contributed to a boom in tourism after the war ended. 

Industry and agriculture also rebounded during the 1940s. Both migrant labor and labor 

unions became more common (Gannon 2003). 

 In the second half of the twentieth century, Florida has experienced a tremendous 

influx of population from within the United States and from other countries, including 

Cuba and Haiti. Cape Canaveral on the Atlantic coast has been the site of many historic 

advances in space exploration. Tourist attractions bring millions of visitors from around 

the world to Florida every year. Industry and agriculture continue to thrive in Florida 

today. 

Florida East Coast Railway 

 One of the most important developments in the history of Florida was the coming 

of the railroads in the late 1800s. Key among them along the east coast of the state was 

the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC). This railroad, which in large part spurred the 

growth of southeast Florida by allowing for a great increase in the movement of people 

and goods to and from the area, owed itself to the initiative of Henry M. Flagler. Making 

his first fortune in 1867 as a founding member of the company that became the Standard 

Oil Company, Flagler did not set out to be a railroad magnate when he first visited 

Florida as a tourist in the winter of 1877-1878 (Bramson 2003). Due to the poor health of 

his wife, the Flaglers were advised to spend some time in the favorable climate of 

Florida. They visited Jacksonville, which was about as far south as the railroad extended 

at that time. After returning to New York, his wife’s condition eventually worsened, and 

she died of tuberculosis in 1881. In 1883, Flagler remarried, and he and his new wife Ida 

honeymooned in St. Augustine. The Flaglers fell in love with the city along with the 

beautiful vegetation and pleasing climate and began to spend more and more time away 

from their home on Long Island (Harner 1973; Turner 2003). 
24

 While Flagler was infatuated with St. Augustine, he also recognized that the 

lodgings were not to his standard and would never be able to entice wealthy visitors from 

the North (Bramson 2003). He decided to change this and, in 1885, purchased some land 

on the edge of town and began construction on a luxury hotel named the Ponce de Leon. 

He began construction on a more modest hotel, the Alcazar, across the street before the 

Ponce de Leon was even finished and also purchased the adjacent Casa Monica hotel. 

Construction materials for the hotels were brought in on the existing narrow gauge 

Jacksonville, St. Augustine & Halifax Fiver Railway. While serviceable for materials, 

this rail line was cheaply built and was known for poor passenger service. In order to 

meet the exacting standards of Flagler and his future hotel guests, it required upgrading. 

In 1886, Flagler purchased a controlling share of the railroad and set about installing 

standard gauge rails and adding new cars and locomotives. He even added a bridge over 

the St. Johns River to bypass the ferry service that was fraught with delays (Harner 1973; 

Turner 2003). 

 When the Ponce de Leon hotel formally opened in 1888, Flagler and his wife 

made it to the festivities in their private railroad car that traveled between Jacksonville 

and St. Augustine on the railroad Flagler purchased (Harner 1973). With a railroad to get 

them to Florida and a grand hotel in which to stay, get-rich-quick land speculators 

quickly arrived. They were thinking of development, and so was Flagler. But Flagler 

was also interested in the transportation side of development—he wanted to move 

agricultural products out and manufactured products in to Florida, and he wanted people 

to move in both directions on his railroads. Repeating what he had done before, Flagler 

bought more small railroads, changed them to standard gauge, and put passenger cars on 

them. For free property along the right of way, Flagler extended the railroad south to 

Rockledge on the Indian River in modern-day Brevard County. The first locomotives 

arrived in Rockledge in February 1893. The railroad was slowly fulfilling one of its 

goals, which was to reach the newly opened citrus and truck farming lands (Harner 

1973). 

 In 1892, the Jacksonville, St. Augustine & Indian River Railway was formed and 

gathered up the various railroads that Flagler had purchased. It also became a holding 

tank for Flagler’s properties given the new land grant policy in Florida whereby 8,000 

free acres of land were granted for each mile of railroad constructed (Turner 2003). In 

May 1893, Flagler broke ground for a new luxury hotel, the Royal Poinciana in Palm 

Beach. The railroad was continued south towards this location reaching Eau Gallie in 

June 1893, Fort Pierce in January 1894, and eventually West Palm Beach in March 1894 

a month after the Royal Poinciana opened (Bramson 2003; Turner 2003). 

 Julia Tuttle and William Brickell, large landowners near the Miami River, tried to 

entice Flagler to continue the railroad to Biscayne Bay, but Flagler initially resisted 

because the area was so sparsely populated. Following the devastating freezes of 1894-

1895 however, which did not affect citrus crops along Biscayne Bay, Flagler was 

convinced. Construction began south of West Palm Beach towards Miami in September 

1895 (Turner 2003). That same month, the name of the railroad was formerly changed to 

the Florida East Coast Railway (Bramson 2003). Early in 1896, Flagler began 
25

construction on a new luxury hotel, the Royal Palm, on Biscayne Bay, and the extension 

of the FEC to the Miami River was completed in April 1896. Owing its growth to the 

coming of the railroad, the city of Miami was incorporated a few months later in July 

1896 (Turner 2003). 

 The end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century saw the further 

expansion of the FEC including acquisition of a line between Enterprise and Titusville, 

extension of the railroad near Jacksonville to Mayport, and extension of the southern 

portion of the line to Homestead. The most ambitious FEC project was started in 1905 

and was the Key West Extension. This monumental task involved bridging the expanses 

between individual keys and even adding to the island of Key West itself to create 

enough space to accommodate a railway terminal and docks. Despite hardships, 

including an October 1906 hurricane that killed almost 150 workers, the Key West 

extension was completed seven years after it began. The first train arrived at Key West 

on January 22, 1912 with the 82-year-old Henry Flagler on board (Bramson 2003; Turner 

2003). 

 During the 1920s boom years in Florida, the FEC saw substantial growth. New 

locomotives and cars were added, new lines were built, and new stations and other 

facilities were constructed. A line along the east side of Lake Okeechobee running 

mostly through western Martin County was added. Most significantly, the mainline 

between Jacksonville and Miami was double tracked to allow for increased traffic. In 

1926, twelve trains per day operated on the FEC mainline (Bramson 2003; Turner 2003). 

 The Depression hit the FEC hard, with bankruptcy declared in 1931. The 

corporation went into receivership and operated at a much smaller scale. The FEC 

witnessed ups and downs in revenue as the years progressed as well as legal wrangling 

resulting from the bankruptcy. It was not until 1961 that the FEC finally emerged from 

bankruptcy as a new corporation under the direction of Edward Ball. The early 1960s 

also saw labor disputes and strikes that interrupted service. Although passenger service 

was resumed in 1965 on a limited basis, it was finally suspended in 1968. After this, the 

FEC focused on freight and piggyback containers. Revenues increased drastically and 

the $100 million mark was surpassed in 1980 (Bramson 2003; Turner 2003). The FEC 

currently operates 351 miles of mainline track along the east coast of Florida (Florida 

East Coast Railway, LLC 2009). 
APPENDIX I: 

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYS CONDUCTED 

WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE EAST-WEST CORRIDOR
Previous Cultural Resource Surveys Conducted Within or Adjacent to the East-West Corridor 

by Survey Number 

Survey 

No. 

Survey Title Author(s) Pub. 

Date 

Relevant 

County 

363 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed Curtis H. 

Stanton Energy Center Railroad 

Daniel, Randy and 

Francisco de la Fuente 

1981 Orange 

469 Improvements to the Orlando 

International Airport 

Browning, William D. 1977 Orange 

2420 CRAS of the Proposed Magnolia 

Ranch Development Site, Orange 

County, Florida 

Piper Archaeology 1990 Orange 

2391 Archaeological Assessment of 

Six Selected Areas in Brevard 

County: a First Generation Model 

Bense, Judith A. and 

John C. Phillips 

1990 Brevard 

2556 CRAS: International Corporate 

Park, Orange County, Florida Richards, Storm L. 1990 Orange 

2835 Historic Properties Survey within 

the City of Cocoa, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1991 Brevard 

2845 CRAS of the Orlando-Orange 

County Expressway Authority's 

Southern Connector, Orange 

County, Florida. 

Austin, Robert J. and 

Charles Fuhrmeister 

1991 Orange 

2926 CRAS of SR-528/Beeline 

Expressway Interchange at I-95, 

Brevard County, Florida. 

Browning, William D. 1991 Brevard 

7943 CRAS of SR 5 (US 1) from 

Barnes Boulevard to Cidco Road, 

Brevard County 

Southeastern 

Archaeological 

Research 

2001 Brevard 

5250 CRAS for the SR 15 from SR 528 

to CR 506 (Conway Road), PD&E 

Study, Orange County, Florida 

Janus Research 1998 Orange 

5346 A CRAS of SR 520 from I- 95 in 

Brevard County to SR 50 in 

Orange County, Florida 

Johnson, Robert E. 1996 Orange 

7586 Old McCoy Road Modlin, Elaina J. 2000 Orange 

5840 CRAS of the Proposed 

Buccaneer Gas Pipeline, Florida 

Estabrook, Richard W. 2000 Orange and 

Brevard 

6794 CRAS for the I-95 PD&E Study 

from SR 514 to SR 50, Brevard 

County, Florida 

Janus Research 2001 Brevard 

6850 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Survey of Florida Gas 

Transmission Company Phase VI 

Expansion Loop C, Loop D, Loop 

E, Leesburg Lateral Loop, Cape 

Kennedy Lateral Loop, and 

Stanton Lateral 

Pochurek, James and 

Anne V. Stokes 

2001 Orange and 

Brevard 
Survey 

No. 

Survey Title Author(s) Pub. 

Date 

Relevant 

County 

6962 Cultural Resource Survey of the 

Proposed: Loop E Access Road 

19A (Clay Co.), Stanton Lateral 

Contractor Yard (Orange Co.), 

FGT Phase VI Expansion, 

Kennedy Lateral Loop Contractor 

Yard and Staging Area at M.P. 

3.9 (Brevard Co.), FGT Blanket 

Certificate Authority 

Pochurek, James and 

Anne V. Stokes 

2001 Orange and 

Brevard 

7391 Florida Gas Transmission 

Company Phase VI Expansion 

Project, Cultural Resource 

Survey Report #7 Modification to 

Support Alignment Drawings Rev. 

C & D 

Stokes, Anne V. 2002 Orange 

8398 A CRRS of the Cidco Road 

Tower Site County: Brevard Luxon, Tiffany L. 2001 Brevard 

10756 An Archaeological Survey of the 

Proposed Space Needle 

Residential Development, 

Brevard County, Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2004 Brevard 

11594 CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E 

Study from SR 520 to the Port 

Canaveral Terminal B 

Interchange, Orange and Brevard 

Counties 

Janus Research 2005 Orange and 

Brevard 

12002 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Beeline and I-95 

Tower in Brevard County, Florida 

Ambrosino, Meghan L 2005 Brevard 

12545 CRAS of the SR 528/SR 524 and 

SR 528/US 1 Interchange 

Reconstruction: Addendum to 

CRAS of the SR 526 PD&E Study 

from SR 520 to Port Canaveral's 

Terminal B Interchange in 

Orange and Brevard County, 

Florida 

Janus Research 2005 Orange and 

Brevard 

13720 CRAS, Randal Park, Orange 

County, Florida 

Dickinson, Martin F., 

Rebecca Klein, and 

Lucy B. Wayne 

2006 Orange 

15961 CRAS of the East Airfield 

Development Area, Orange 

County, Florida 

ACI 2008 Orange 

18373 Historic Structures Assessment 

Survey US 1 from Rosa L. Jones 

Drive to Pine Street and US 1 

from Pine Street to Cidco Road, 

Brevard County, Florida 

Salo, Edward and Ryan 

Vandyke 

2011 Brevard 
APPENDIX J: 

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYS CONDUCTED 

WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR
Previous Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted Within and Adjacent to the North-South 

Corridor 

Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

148 Cultural Resource 

Reconnaissance of Hobe Sound 

National Wildlife Refuge, Martin 

County, Florida 

Fryman, Mildred L., 

James J. Miller, and 

David E. Swindell 

1979 Martin 

629 State Project #88505-3601, 

Storm Grove Road from SR 505 

to East of US 1 

Browning, William D. 

and Ross L. Morrell 

1977 Indian River 

638 Gar-Con Development, Inc. Sigler-Lavelle, Brenda 1982 Brevard 

949 CRAS of the proposed St. 

Sebastian Planned Unit 

Development, Indian River 

County, Florida 

Ballo, Janice R., 

Kenneth W. Hardin, and 

Harry M. Piper 

1983 Indian River 

1591 Proposed Milling, Resurfacing, 

and Widening of SR 5/US 1, from 

Indian River County Line South to 

Bridge 940029 over Taylor Creek, 

in St. Lucie County, Florida 

Browning, William D. 

and Melissa G. 

Wiedenfeld 

1988 St. Lucie 

1817 CRAS of the Proposed Sea 

Branch Development Site, Martin 

County, Florida 

Austin, Robert J. and 

Janice R. Ballo 

1987 Martin 

2035 West Palm Beach Survey: First 

Year Final Report 

Miller, Elizabeth L. 1989 Palm Beach 

2149 Report of Supplemental 

Investigation, State Project No. 

70180-1505. 

Browning, William D. 1989 Brevard 

2368 Historic Properties Survey of 

Rockledge, Florida 

Olausen, Stephen A. 1990 Brevard 

2535 Northwood Survey: Final Report Miller, Elizabeth L. 1990 Palm Beach 

2549 Historic District Survey of 

Northwest Area West Palm 

Beach, Florida 

Munnings, Elizabeth S. 1989 Palm Beach 

2670 Historic Properties Survey of the 

City of Vero Beach, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1990 Indian River 

2686 Cultural Resource Assessment 

Request, Proposed 

Improvements to US 1/SR 5, 

Indian River County, Florida 

Browning, William D. 

and Melissa G. 

Wiedenfeld 

1987 Indian River 

2761 Historic Properties Survey of the 

City of Stuart, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1991 Martin 

2835 Historic Properties Survey within 

the City of Cocoa, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1991 Brevard 

2978 Historic Architectural Survey: 

Melbourne, Florida 

Olausen, Stephen A. 1991 Brevard 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

3095 CRAS of SR 710 from SR 809 

(Military Trail) to SR 5/US 1 in 

Palm Beach County, Florida 

McMurray, Carl 1992 Palm Beach 

3170 An Archaeological Survey of 

Indian River County Florida, AHC 

Tech Report #55 

Archaeological and 

Historical Conservancy 

1992 Indian River 

3312 Historic Properties Survey of Fort 

Pierce, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1992 St. Lucie 

3439 CRAS of the Proposed Upgrade 

of SR 708 from SR 710 to 

Garden Road and Proposed 

Jurisdictional Change of SR 708 

from C-17 Canal to SR 5/US 1 in 

Palm Beach County 

McMurray, Carl 1992 Palm Beach 

4104 An Archaeological Survey of 

Martin County, Florida 

Carr, Robert S., Linda 

Jester, and Jim Pepe 

1995 Martin 

4130 A Cultural Resource Assessment 

Survey of US 1 From Aurora 

Road to SR 404, Brevard County, 

Florida 

Ashley, Keith H., 

Marsha A. Chance, and 

Greg C. Smith 

1994 Brevard 

4363 Cultural Resource Assessment of 

A Proposed Roadway Expansion 

to SR 5/US 1 from South of Kings 

Highway to North of 4th Street 

(Indian River Boulevard) 

Haiduvan, Richard, 

Scott P. Lewis, and 

Karen Webster Milano 

1995 Indian River 

and St. Lucie 

4444 An Archaeological Assessment of 

the Savannas State Reserve, St. 

Lucie and Martin Counties, 

Florida 

Newman, Christine and 

Ryan J. Wheeler 

1996 St. Lucie and 

Martin 

4818 Historic Architectural Survey of 

Martin County, Florida 

Historic Property 

Associates 

1997 Martin 

4980 Assessment Survey of 

Archaeological Resources, SR 

786/PGA Boulevard Grade 

Separation at SR 811/Dixie 

Highway and Associated Water 

Retention Areas, Palm Beach 

County, Florida 

Lewis, Scott P. 1997 Palm Beach 

5072 Cultural Resource Assessment: A 

Proposed Roadway Resurfacing, 

Re-striping, and Traffic 

Signalization to Northwood Road, 

24th Street, 25th Street, 58th

Street, and 59th Street, from Dixie 

Highway to SR 5/US 1/Broadway 

Avenue, West Palm Beach, 

Florida 

Milano, Karen Webster 1995 Palm Beach 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

5092 A CRAS of Study Area M-12 in 

St. Lucie County, Florida 

Ashley, Keith H., 

Marsha A. Chance, and 

Steve Ferrell 

1997 St. Lucie 

5244 A CRAS of the Hobe Sound Land 

Company Laurel Lane Tract, 

Martin County, Florida 

Bland, Myles C.P. 1998 Martin 

5301 Town of Lake Park Historic 

Resources Report 

Janus Research 1998 Palm Beach 

5585 CRAS of Red Stick Golf Club, 

Indian River County, Florida 

Fitts, Mary Beth, Paul L. 

Jones, and Juliet K. 

Tatum 

1999 Indian River 

5928 A Preliminary Archaeological 

Survey of the City of West Palm 

Beach, Florida 

Austin, Robert J. 2000 Palm Beach 

6039 A Phase II Archaeological Survey 

of Martin County, Florida 

Carr, Robert S., Chris 

Eck, and James Pepe 

1998 Martin 

6105 An Archaeological Survey of St. 

Lucie County, Florida 

Carr, Robert S. and Jim 

Pepe 

2000 St. Lucie 

6170 An Archaeological Survey of the 

Dixon-Butts Parcel, Martin 

County, Florida 

Beriault, John G. and 

Robert S. Carr 

2001 Martin 

6850 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Survey of Florida Gas 

Transmission Company Phase VI 

Expansion Loop C, Loop D, Loop 

E, Leesburg Lateral Loop, Cape 

Kennedy Lateral Loop, and 

Stanton Lateral 

Pochurek, James and 

Anne V. Stokes 

2001 Brevard 

6986 Archaeological Resource 

Assessment Survey of the 

Proposed SR 715/Monterey Road 

Expansion from SR 5/US 1 to SR 

A1A, Martin County, Florida 

Lewis, Scott P., Frank 

D. Rodriguez, and 

Karen Webster 

1999 Martin 

7130 A Phase I Cultural Resources 

Survey of the M-8 Dredged 

Material Management Area, St. 

Lucie County, Florida 

Koski, Steven H. and 

Jennifer Langdale 

2001 St. Lucie 

7336 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed 

Melbourne Village Tower 

Location in Brevard County, 

Florida 

Sims, Cynthia L. 2002 Brevard 

7347 A CRAS of the 13th Street 

Realignment Project 

Janus Research 2002 Palm Beach 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

7374 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed 

Savannah Road Tower Location 

in Martin County, Florida 

Batategas, Juliet T. 2001 Martin 

7546 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed SE Port 

Salerno Tower Location in Martin 

County, Florida 

Batategas, Juliet T. 2002 Martin 

7652 A Cultural Resource 

Reconnaissance of the Proposed 

Jurisdictional Roadway Transfers 

in St. Lucie County, Florida 

Estabrook, Richard W., 

Lisa N. Lamb, and 

Patricia H. Spriggs 

2002 St. Lucie 

7943 CRAS of SR 5/US 1 from Barnes 

Boulevard to Cidco Road, 

Brevard County 

Southeastern 

Archaeological 

Research 

2001 Brevard 

8126 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed Jupiter 

Eyeball Tower Location in Palm 

Beach County, Florida 

Jones, Paul L. and 

Cynthia L. Sims 

2001 Palm Beach 

8127 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed 

Sebastian Tower Location in 

Indian River County, Florida 

Jones, Paul L. and 

Cynthia L. Sims 

2001 Indian River 

8388 CRAS of the Barton Park Manor 

Stormwater Management Area, 

Rockledge, Brevard County, 

Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2001 Brevard 

8398 A CRRS of the Cidco Road 

Tower Site County: Brevard 

Luxon, Tiffany L. 2001 Brevard 

8472 A CRAS of the Riviera Beach 

Harbor High School Site, Palm 

Beach County, Florida 

Janus Research 2002 Palm Beach 

8554 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Grant/Palm Bay 

Tower Location in Brevard 

County, Florida 

Sims, Cynthia L. 2001 Brevard 

8557 A CRAS for the SR 5/US 1 PD&E 

Study, Martin County, Florida 

Ambrosino, James N. 2002 Martin 

8594 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed Burns 

Road Tower Location in Palm 

Beach County, Florida 

Jones, Paul L. and 

Audrey Kennedy 

2001 Palm Beach 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

9061 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Survey and Archaeological 

Inventory of the Onshore Florida 

Portion of the Proposed Seafarer 

U.S. Pipeline System Project in 

Palm Beach and Martin Counties, 

Florida 

Athens, William P., Katy 

Coyle, and Kari Krause 

2003 Martin and 

Palm Beach 

9251 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Survey of the Marie Lakes 

Project, Brevard County, Florida 

Stokes, Anne V. 2003 Brevard 

9286 A Cultural Resource Assessment 

of SR 5/US 1 from 200 Feet 

South of Bridge #940029 to 1600 

Feet North of Bridge #940029 in 

St. Lucie County, Florida 

Nolte, Kelly and Cynthia 

L. Sims 

2003 St. Lucie 

9310 Cultural Resources Survey and 

Inventory of the Seafarer U.S. 

Pipeline System, Inc.'s Proposed 

26-Inch Gas Pipeline, Florida 

State Waters Boundary to the 

Florida Mainland 

Duncan, David, 

Christopher Goodwin, 

and Harley Meier 

2004 Martin and 

Palm Beach 

9317 An Archaeological Assessment of 

Stuart Business Park, Martin 

County, Florida 

Mankowski, Joseph F. 2003 Martin 

9355 A Re-Assessment of Cultural 

Resource Surveys of 16th and 

17th Street from West of 14th

Avenue to East of SR 5/US 1 in 

Indian River County, Florida 

Nolte, Kelly and Cynthia 

L. Sims 

2003 Indian River 

9478 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Old Fort Park, Fort 

Pierce, Florida 

Carr, Robert S., Alison 

Elgart-Berry, and Tim 

Harrington 

2003 St. Lucie 

9482 Phase I Cultural Resources 

Survey of the O-23 Dredged 

Material Management Area, 

Martin County, Florida 

Koski, Steven, Jennifer 

Langdale, and Pam 

Vojnovski 

2003 Martin 

9684 St. Lucie County Historic 

Resources Survey 

Janus Research 2003 St. Lucie 

9985 A CRAS of the Proposed 

Coconut Cove Development 

Project, St. Lucie County, Florida 

Johnson, Robert E. 2004 St. Lucie 

10174 Section 106 Case Study Report 

for SR 5/US 1 from the South 

Relief Canal to North of Indian 

River Boulevard in Indian River 

County, Florida 

Wheeler, Ryan J. 2004 Indian River 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

10175 Cultural Resource 

Reconnaissance of SR 5/US 1 

from 6th Avenue to 20th Place, 

Indian River County, Florida 

Sims, Cynthia L. 2004 Indian River 

10207 A CRAS of SR 707 Proposed 

Jurisdictional Roadway Transfer 

from Savanna Road to the 

Jensen Beach Causeway in 

Martin County, Florida 

Knowles, Jeanette and 

Cynthia L. Sims 

2004 Martin 

10258 CRRS and Section 106 Review: 

Vertex-AAAB Cellular Tower 

Scupholm, Carrie 2004 Palm Beach 

10259 CRRS and Section 106 Review: 

Vertex-AAYW Cellular Tower 

Pracht, Jodi. B. and 

Carrie Scupholm 

2004 Palm Beach 

10263 An Intensive CRAS of Boozer 

Tracts A & B, Brevard County, 

Florida 

Handley, Brent M. and 

Ryan O. Sipe 

2004 Brevard 

10603 Assessment of Potential Effects 

Upon Historic Properties: 

Proposed 120-Foot Mancil 

Tractor Wireless 

Telecommunications Tower 

(Houston Cuozzo Group), Martin 

County, Florida 

Parker, Brian T. 2004 Martin 

10690 A Phase I Archaeological Survey 

of the 69th Street Parcel, Indian 

River County, Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2004 Indian River 

10698 Assessment of Potential Effects 

Upon Historic Properties: 

Proposed 175-Foot Harris 

Corporation Replacement 

Wireless Telecommunications 

Tower (Verizon Wireless 082530-

1), Brevard County, Florida 

Florida Archaeological 

Consulting, Inc. 

2004 Brevard 

10799 A CRAS of the Proposed Wolf's 

Corner Development Project, St. 

Lucie County, Florida 

Johnson, Robert E. 2004 St. Lucie 

10954 Phase I Cultural Resources 

Survey and Archaeological 

Inventory of the Onshore Florida 

Portion of the Proposed Seafarer 

US Pipeline System Project in 

Palm Beach County, Florida 

Athens, William P., Katy 

Coyle, and Kari Krause 

2003 Palm Beach 

11311 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Bonaventure Tower 

Location in Brevard County, 

Florida 

Sims, Cynthia L. 2005 Brevard 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

11594 CRAS for the SR 528 PD&E 

Study From SR 520 to the Port 

Canaveral Terminal B 

Interchange, Orange and Brevard 

Counties 

Janus Research 2005 Brevard 

11766 A CRRS of the Paladin Shores 

Tract, Brevard County, Florida 

Hadley, Brent M. and 

Christopher T. Savage 

2005 Brevard 

11796 Phase 1 Cultural Resource 

Survey of the Highpointe 

Property, Indian River County, 

Florida 

Stokes, Anne V. 2005 Indian River 

12037 Historic Building Survey of South 

Indian River Drive (CR 707) from 

North of the Jensen Beach 

Causeway to South Citrus 

Avenue, Martin and St. Lucie 

Counties, Florida 

Estabrook, Richard W. 2005 St. Lucie 

12072 Archaeological Assessment and 

Monitoring of the Indian River 

Drive (CR 707) Emergency Road 

Restoration Project, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Beriault, John G., 

Robert S. Carr, and 

Ned Gordon 

2005 St. Lucie 

12162 A Cultural Resources 

Assessment of the Pineda 

Causeway Realignment and 

Extension Project, Brevard 

County, Florida 

Causey, Phillip 2005 Brevard 

12189 A CRRS of Clearlake Crossings 

Brevard County, Florida 

Nash, Jennifer L.F. 2005 Brevard 

12392 A CRAS of the Community 

Redevelopment Area County: 

Palm Beach 

Janus Research 2003 Palm Beach 

12545 CRAS of the SR 528/SR 524 and 

SR 528/US 1 Interchange 

Reconstruction: Addendum to 

CRAS of the SR 526 PD&E Study 

from SR 520 to Port Canaveral's 

Terminal B Interchange in 

Orange and Brevard County, 

Florida 

Janus Research 2005 Brevard 

12566 A CRAS of the CR 510 (Wabasso 

Road) PD&E Study form CR 512 

(Fellsmere Road) to Indian River 

Bridge #880052 in Indian River 

County, Florida 

PCI 2005 Indian River 

12732 A CRRS of the Kid Creek Estates 

Tract, Brevard County, Florida 

Arbuthnot, Michael A. 2006 Brevard 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

12928 A CRAS for Roadway 

Improvements of SR 811 

(Alternate A1A) from Donald 

Ross Road to SR 706 (East 

Indiantown Road) in Palm Beach 

County, Florida 

Carty, Thomas, J. 2006 Palm Beach 

12932 Cultural Resource Assessment of 

SR 707 (Dixie Highway) from the 

US 1 Underpass to Savannah 

Road, Martin County, Florida 

Estabrook, Richard W. 2005 Martin 

12949 CRAS of SR 710 From West of 

Australian Avenue to Old Dixie 

Highway (CR 811) Palm Beach 

County, Florida 

Janus Research 2005 Palm Beach 

13217 An Archeological and Historical 

Reconnaissance Survey of the 

Blue Harbour Project Tract, St. 

Lucie County, Florida 

Johnson Robert E. 2006 St. Lucie 

13293 A CRAS of the Proposed Red 

Stick Development Tract, Indian 

River County, Florida 

Johnson Robert E. 2006 Indian River 

13362 Phase 1 Cultural Resource 

Survey of the Indian River 

National Bank and Sebastian 

Medical Project, Indian River 

County, Florida 

Nodine, Bruce 2006 Indian River 

13483 CRRS and Section 106 Review: 

Vertex-AARB Cellular Tower 535 

Park Avenue, Lake Park, Palm 

Beach County, Florida 33403 

Township 42 South, Range 43 

East, Section 21 

Scupholm, Carrie 2004 Palm Beach 

13575 A CRRS of the Universal/TV 27 

West Tract Indian River County, 

Florida 

Kozma, Thomas J. and 

Christopher A. Schaefer

2006 Indian River 

13582 A CRRS of the Universal/TV 1 

Tract Indian River County, Florida 

Kozma, Thomas J. and 

Christopher A. Schaefer

2006 Indian River 

13749 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Southeastern 

Studies Project Area in Indian 

River County, Florida 

Carty, Thomas, J. 2007 Indian River 

13950 An Intensive CRAS of the TV-1 

Williamz Tract Indian River 

County, Florida 

Nash, Jennifer L.F. and 

Christopher A. Schaefer

2007 Indian River 

14000 CRRS South Florida East Coast 

Corridor Transit Analysis MiamiDade, Broward and Palm Beach 

Counties 

Janus Research 2006 Palm Beach 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

14147 A Preliminary Archaeological 

Survey of the Main Canal Vortex 

Treatment System/Vero Site, 

Vero Beach, Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2005 Indian River 

14150 An Archeological and Historical 

Survey of the Proposed Indian 

River County Administration 

Complex, Vero Beach, Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2005 Indian River 

14203 An Underwater Archaeological 

Remote Sensing Survey of the 

Lower St. Sebastian River in 

Brevard County and Indian River 

Counties, Florida 

Mid-Atlantic Technology 

and Environmental 

Research, Inc. 

2004 Brevard and 

Indian River 

14248 An Archaeological Survey of the 

Schlitt Parcel, Indian River 

County, Florida 

Penders, Thomas E. 2005 Indian River 

14299 An Archeological 

Reconnaissance Survey of the 

SE Rohl Way Project Tract, 

Martin County, Florida 

Johnson, Robert E. 2007 Martin 

14366 An Archeological and Historical 

Survey of the Jarvis Parcel 

Project Area in Indian River 

County, Florida 

Driscoll, Kelly A. 2007 Indian River 

14380 Fort Pierce Historic Properties 

Survey, Fort Pierce, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

TRC Environmental, 

Inc. 

2007 St. Lucie 

14397 CRRS SR 714 (Monterey Road) 

from Palm City Road to Dixie 

Highway, Martin County, Florida 

Estabrook, Richard W. 2005 Martin 

14572 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Assessment Commons at Vero 

Indian River County, Florida 

Dickinson, Martin F., 

Christopher Rayle, and 

Lucy B. Wayne 

2007 Indian River 

14700 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the 77th Street 

Commerce Village Project Area in 

Indian River County, Florida 

Ambrosino, Meghan L. 2007 Indian River 

15089 Jonathan Dickinson State Park, 

East Boundary Fire Break, Martin 

County 

Richardson, Barry 2008 Martin 

15160 A CRAS of the North County 

Charter School Project Area in 

Indian River County, Florida 

Ambrosino, Meghan L. 2008 Indian River 

15973 SHOPCO Advisory Corporation 

River Bend Development Project 

Located in Indian River County, 

Florida: Cultural Resources 

Assessment 

Fillman-Richards, 

Jeanne and Storm L. 

Richards 

2000 Indian River 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

16119 Historic Resource Survey Update 

of the Original Town and Osceola 

Park Area Neighborhoods 

Brady, Anna J. 2008 Indian River 

16338 CRAS of the SR 732 Jensen 

Beach Causeway (Frank A. 

Wacha) Bridge Replacement 

PD&E Study from Savannah 

Road to State Road A1A/Ocean 

Boulevard in Martin County 

Janus Research 1996 Martin 

16741 A CRAS of the FPL RanchRiviera Transmission Line ROW, 

Palm Beach County, Florida 

Arbuthnot, Michael A. 2009 Palm Beach 

18080 Phase I Cultural Resource 

Survey for the 5485 US 1 

Property, Indian River County, 

Florida 

White, Matthew 2010 Indian River 

18373 Historic Structures Assessment 

Survey US 1 from Rosa L. Jones 

Drive to Pine Street and US 1 

from Pine Street to Cidco Road, 

Brevard County, Florida 

Salo, Edward and Ryan 

Vandyke 

2011 Brevard 

18377 FCC Form 620 New Tower ("NT") 

Submission Packet: 

PIFEC00264.8 Tower, Martin 

County, Florida 

Jones, Paul L. 2011 Martin 

18666 CRAS of SR 5/US 1 from North of 

SR 7/Kings Highway to South of 

Oslo Road, Indian River and St. 

Lucie Counties, Florida 

Janus Research 2011 Indian River 

and St. Lucie 

18752 Desktop Analysis and 

Reconnaissance Survey for the 

Proposed Jurisdictional Transfer 

of SR 707 from the SR 5 

Underpass (MP 20.702) to NE 

Cardinal Avenue/NE Savannah 

Road (MP 22.675) to City of 

Stuart, Martin County, Florida 

Janus Research 2011 Martin 

18889 Proposed Apollo-Hickory 

Alignment from Palm Bay North 

to Melbourne, Brevard County, 

Florida 

Browning, William D. 

and Melissa G. 

Wiedenfeld 

1985 Brevard 

18933 A CRAS of the Seabranch East 

Coast Greenway (Phase II) 

Project, Martin County, Florida 

Johnson, Robert E. 2011 Martin 

18988 Cultural Resource Assessment: A 

Proposed Jurisdictional Property 

Transfer of SR A1A (Ocean 

Boulevard) from SR 76 to CR 714 

Milano, Karen Webster 1995 Martin 
Survey 

No. Survey Title Author(s) Pub. Date 

Relevant 

County 

18989 Cultural Resource Assessment: A 

Proposed Jurisdictional Property 

Transfer of SR 5A (Old Dixie CutOff) from South Federal Highway 

to Old Dixie Highway 

Milano, Karen Webster 1995 Martin 

18990 Cultural Resource Assessment: A 

Proposed Jurisdictional Property 

Transfer of SR 76 (Colorado 

Avenue) from US 1 South 

Federal Highway to SR A1A 

Milano, Karen Webster 1995 Martin 

18995 CRAS, 16th and 17th Street, City 

of Vero Beach, Indian River 

County 

Lewis, Scott P. and 

Karen Webster 

1997 Indian River 

19159 FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail 

Project: Volumes I, II, and III 

PCI and Janus 

Research 

2010 Brevard, 

Indian River, 

Martin, Palm 

Beach, and 

St. Lucie 

19480 CRAR for the AAF Passenger 

Rail Project from West Palm 

Beach to Miami, West Palm 

Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade 

Counties 

Janus Research 2012 Palm Beach 

19596 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the Mangonia 

PIFDG00296 C Tower in Palm 

Beach County, Florida FCC Form 

620 

Mikell, Greg 2012 Palm Beach 

19599 An Archaeological and Historical 

Survey of the West Palm Yard 

PIHMF00298.2 Tower in Palm 

Beach County, Florida FCC Form 

620 

Mikell, Greg 2012 Palm Beach